Connexus Homes Limited (202310904)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202310904
Connexus Homes Limited
27 November 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
- The resident’s reports of noise nuisance from her neighbour (“N”).
- The resident’s request for a move.
Background
- The resident occupied a one-bedroom bungalow under an assured tenancy agreement. No vulnerabilities were recorded for the resident however the landlord noted that she had been treated for cancer. She reported herself as disabled and that she was getting mental health support.
Legal and policy framework
- The landlord has not provided the ASB policy operating at the time of the complaint. Its website states that ASB includes “excessive noise nuisance”. It notes that “sometimes everyday living noise can be annoying, but unless it is excessive or unreasonable we would not, under normal circumstances, consider it to be antisocial”. The landlord says it will:
- Give information and advice on the types of action that can be taken to resolve the situation.
- Discuss any specific needs that the resident may have, such as literacy, hearing or sight impairments.
- Tell the resident about the support services that it and other agencies, such as Victim Support, can provide and make referrals.
- Work in partnership with any other specialist organisations or agencies, as appropriate to individual needs.
- Discuss and agree in which evidence will be collected such as through Incident log sheets, CCTV or Noise Monitoring Equipment.(NME).
- Further steps included mediation (to resolve issues such as noise).
- Not move people as a means of resolving anti-social behaviour except in very extreme situations where there are fears for safety. The recommendations of agencies such as the Police will be required in considering such a move.
- Respect a resident’s wish not to be identified to the alleged perpetrator, but that would limit what it could do.
The complaint
- In 2022, the resident had made a number of reports about noise from her neighbour. She made an application to the Environmental Health team (EHO) at the local council, the landlord installed NME and offered the resident a Noise App.
- On 30 August 2022, the resident made a complaint that the landlord had not dealt with her reports of noise satisfactorily. She had not slept and was unable to watch TV. She was unwell.
- On 4 October 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows:
- It referred to a visit at the property of 27 September 2022 and telephone call to the resident on 4 October 2022.
- It stated that the complaint was about noise. It had also discussed adaptations and a move.
- It apologised for “any inconvenience” caused by the issues complained of.
- It was unable to act upon the reported noise issues without any evidence. The installed noise equipment did not pick up any noise that was not at a level to be considered a nuisance. It asked her to continue to log the incidents and continue with her application for the Environmental Health team at the council. It did not have an obligation to inform her neighbour of instalment of noise monitoring equipment.
- It noted the adaptations application was in process as advised by her Occupational Therapist.
- It clarified that the resident had, with the help of support, submitted her application with medical evidence to support a move.
- On 3 February 2023, Citizen’s Advice wrote to the landlord to state the resident had been “struggling” with ASB from N. It had affected her ability to sleep. She was a cancer patient who had undergone surgery and this had hindered her recovery. It cited reports of intimidation and that N turned off the music when anyone approaching his property. “Multiple people” were aware of the noise. The landlord acknowledged there was noise. In October 2022, the landlord had agreed to let her stay the night in its guest bungalow because her own property did not have electricity at the time.
- On 10 February 2023, the landlord escalated the complaint and offered an “involved customer” to take part in the complaints process in order to review how it had handled the complaint and to provide an independent view on the proposed outcome.
- On 3 March 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
- It referred to its telephone calls with the resident on 1 and 2 March 2023.
- It confirmed it had not shared her personal details with N.
- It regretted that she felt that her reports had not been dealt with appropriately, and apologised for making her feel ignored.
- While it was correct that the noise recording equipment did not collect any evidence of noise nuisance, it did not consider any further solutions or ideas at the time, so did not feel that her original complaint was handled well.
- It was agreed that 2 Housing Officers (not previously involved in her case) would visit both her and N to try and identify if possible noise transference may be causing a higher than acceptable level of noise. It would arrange this for 6 March 2023.
- It may not solve the issues but would allow the landlord to fully investigate the problem.
- The Area Housing Manager would “lead“ on this and contact her when arranged. It would then contact her within 7 calendar days to discuss the findings and next steps.
- It would also discuss internally different ways of approaching noise nuisance which would ultimately be used to create a new Noise Policy.
- In conclusion, it felt that it could have investigated her noise complaint in more detail and that this should have been identified in the Stage 1 complaint.
Assessment and findings
The resident’s reports of noise nuisance
- This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have affected and caused distress to her. In cases of ASB or noise nuisance, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether or not the ASB or noise occurred, but rather, to assess how the landlord responded to reports made and whether its responses were in accordance with its policies and procedures, followed good practice and were appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances.
- Moreover, noise does not necessarily constitute ASB. The landlord’s policy states that noise would have to be “excessive”. To be actionable, the landlord would have to prove that it was deliberate, or so avoidable as to be considered to be deliberate. Reports of noise should be investigated in any event in order to assess whether there were any steps the landlord could take to reduce noise transference. We would expect the landlord to signpost the resident to the local authority to ascertain whether a statutory (or unlawful) nuisance had occurred. This is a high bar in terms of the time of day the noise occurs and at what volume. Noise can also be considered a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which is only actionable by local authorities.
- The landlord’s records noted that it took the following actions:
- On 9 May 2022, the resident was provided with a Noise App. She sent recordings to the landlord made between 6 to 16 May 2022. The landlord reviewed these on 16 May 2022. According to the landlord’s records, the app only picked up a dog barking and background noise.
- In May 2022, the landlord offered the resident support and was told she had a social worker in relation to her mental health. The landlord offered to signpost her for further support on various occasions.
- The landlord attended the resident’s property on 3 June 2022. The resident reported that she could hear noise at that visit. The housing officers attending reported that they did not hear anything. According to the landlord’s notes, the resident replied “yes, but you don’t know what you’re listening for”.
- On 7 June 2022, the EHO installed noise monitoring equipment (NME) with the resident’s agreement, and she had said she would accept its findings. The NME was collected on 21 June 2022. The resident recorded what she could hear over the same period. She recorded banging, music, the noise of a washing machine at various times of the day and night, including in the early hours of the morning. However, the NME only recorded the resident’s movements. This was also noted by the EHO. The landlord then closed the case.
- Following the letter from Citizens Advice in February 2023, the landlord attended the resident on 10 February 2023. She described the noise as “all day and night, walls shaking and boom boom noise from music”. She also described a domestic argument between N’s daughter and her boyfriend. The landlord made enquiries with the police regarding this.
- According to a note of 14 February 2023, housing officers visited the property several times unannounced and did not hear any noise. It noted that the layout of the close was as such that if there was loud music being played then other residents would hear it. It had received no complaints from any other neighbours or nearby residents.
- On 2 March 2023, the landlord reported to the resident that it had contacted one of the neighbours the resident had specified as a witness but that neighbour had told them they could not hear anything.
- It continued to offer to signpost her to support and met with a support worker from a large mental health charity the following year.
- This showed that the landlord responded promptly to reports. It spoke to both parties, the resident and N and attended the resident’s property. It acted reasonably in seeking evidence of the noise by way of a Noise App and NME and attending N’s property, paying “surprise” visits, considering other witnesses, making enquiries with neighbours and liaising with the police. It also offered support in accordance with its policy.
- In its Stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it should not have closed the case without investigating further. It reasonably extended its enquiries with the resident’s neighbours, and, with the resident’s agreement, arranged for a noise transference test which was carried out that week.
- On 24 March 2023, the landlord carried out a “noise test” consisting of one officer making noise in N’s property while another listened in that of the resident. The “involved customer” was present. According to its letter of 30 March 2023, a housing officer arranged for N to use the TV in the lounge and TV in the bedroom. N also played music via a stereo system. The housing officer increased the volume to excessively loud. The housing officer in the resident’s home only heard two incidents of some audible noise. While the resident’s home was silent, the noise would not be viewed as unacceptable. It recognised different noise tolerances and suggested she be tested for noise sensitivity. The landlord also offered the resident mediation. This demonstrated a thorough test but also an open-mindedness about noise tolerance. It is understood the resident was unhappy with the contents of the letter. However, there was no objective evidence of noise within the resident’s property without which the landlord could take no further action.
- It is noted that the resident had a cancer diagnosis, she reported herself as disabled and, as such, the landlord had a duty to consider any duties under the Equality Act 2010. However, in our view, it had carried out a reasonable range of investigations and had not identified any evidence of noise. The landlord was unable to take any steps without evidence. It could neither take any steps in relation to N or consider measures to reduce noise transference as it had concluded there was nothing significant. It was reasonable that the landlord said in its Stage 2 response that it would introduce a noise policy, recognising that the issue of noise needs to be treated separately to ASB. In the circumstances, we consider that reopening the case and carrying out further investigations represented reasonable redress by the landlord in it closing the case, prematurely by its own account, in June/July 2022.
- We did not identify a noise policy on the landlord’s website and will make a recommendation accordingly.
- While it is noted that the resident disputed the evidence, what the neighbour said and considered that the noise recordings were a “fix”, there was no evidence that the landlord had manufactured the lack of evidence. The resident felt the noise test was defective because N did not turn the music up sufficiently, however it was the housing officer who turned up the volume, not N.
- We understand that N no longer occupies the property and the matter has concluded.
- We noted that there was delay between the resident’s complaint of 30 August 2024 and the landlord’s Stage 1 response of 2 weeks. The delay was not acknowledged. We do not consider there was a significant impact but will make a recommendation in that regard.
Adaptations
- The Stage 1 response referred to the resident raising the issue of adaptations with the landlord. It was not clear whether this formed part of her complaint There was no evidence that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response or escalated this further with the landlord. According to its website, the first steps in a request for adaptations such as fitting a bath would be an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment. The landlord noted on 10 February 2023 that the resident had given up on the OT referral for a bath. If the resident were unhappy, she can contact the local authority and the landlord.
The resident’s request for a move
- While a move is a matter for the local authority, we would expect the landlord to consider its own policies and ability to offer a management move and to consider any assistance and support it could provide to the resident. During the visit on 10 February 2023, the resident reported that she needed a second bedroom for a carer and to move nearer her daughter. On 28 February 2023, the landlord considered a direct let for the resident but concluded, and informed the resident that, as her bungalow was suitable for her needs, a direct let was not appropriate. Its ASB policy stated that it would not move people because of ASB “except in very extreme situations where there are fears for safety”. The recommendations of agencies such as the Police would be required in considering such a move. The police did not consider there was evidence of ASB or risk so it was reasonable the landlord did not offer a management move but signposted her to the local authority or a mutual exchange.
Determination
- In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from her neighbour (“N”).
- In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s request for a move.
Recommendations
- The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
- Within 3 weeks, the landlord should speak to the resident to discuss whether it should record her health condition centrally and explain to her what any benefits would be of doing so. The landlord should also consider whether the resident is automatically considered to be under a disability the Equality Act 2010, given her cancer diagnosis. Equality Act 2010 The landlord should provide a copy or screen shot of that record to the resident.
- The landlord should draft and publish a noise policy on the landlord’s website, as promised in its Stage 2 response to the resident if it has not done so already.
- The landlord should publish its direct let/management move policy on the landlord’s website. If it does not have one, it should consider drafting one.
- The landlord should ensure that if it failed to meet its complaints policy timescales, it should acknowledge this in its complaint responses.
- The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.