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

Leeds City Council (202414872)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414872

Leeds City Council

22 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy at the property which is a 2 bedroom flat, in a block of 4 flats. He succeeded to the tenancy in 2018. The landlord is a Local Authority.
  2. On 12 September 2023 at around 11pm, the landlord attended the block, following a report from the resident, and noted that it could hear loud music coming from the upstairs neighbour’s property(the neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord). The landlord asked the neighbour to turn the music down, however, it noted that the music restarted, although at a lower volume. The landlord concluded that, due to the initial volume of the music, it would serve a noise abatement notice on the neighbour. It hand delivered this notice to the neighbour on 15 September 2023. This notice stated that the neighbour must prevent a reoccurrence of the statutory noise nuisance and that failure to comply would be an offence.
  3. The resident reported further incidents of loud music, however, these were not witnessed by the landlord. The landlord sent the neighbour a reminder letter setting out the requirements of the noise abatement notice. A further report of loud music was witnessed by the landlord on 11 December 2023. It concluded that as the neighbour had not received the reminder letter at that point, it would not take enforcement action.
  4. The resident reported loud music again in May 2024. He submitted a complaint on 13 May 2024 and stated as follows:
    1. The landlord had not resolved the ASB for over 9 years. It had issued the neighbour with a noise abatement notice but had not taken further action against the neighbour following occurrences of loud music.
    2. The neighbour had installed CCTV cameras overlooking the communal steps. As such he could turn the music down before the landlord could witness his behaviour.
    3. He had tried to call the landlord’s out of hours team but they had not been interested in his report of loud music from 12 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated within his correspondence to the landlord and this Service that there has been ASB from his neighbour for the past 9 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because, with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the period from the resident’s report of ASB from September 2023 (which led to a noise abatement notice being served on the neighbour by the landlord) and the resident’s subsequent complaint. Reference to any events that occurred prior this are for context only.
  2. Within his complaint, the resident has raised concerns about the neighbour’s installation of CCTV. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to assess and determine the privacy issues described in this case. The resident confirmed to this Service that he approached the ICO in respect of this. Whilst it is not appropriate for the Housing Ombudsman to consider privacy matters, this report will assess whether the landlord responded reasonably in its handling of the information provided by the resident to this aspect of his complaint about the neighbour’s alleged ASB.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour

  1. It is evident that the situation, which the resident describes as having been ongoing for a number of years, has been very distressing for the resident. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and the reasonableness of its responses to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a neighbour was responsible for ASB or whether there was a breach of a noise abatement notice. The investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies and procedures, as well as what was fair in all the circumstances. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against a neighbour.
  2. When ASB is reported to a landlord, it has a number of options open to it to try to substantiate such an allegation, such as noise monitoring and recording equipment. In this case, following the reported loud music on 12 September 2023, the landlord attended the block to witness the noise itself and evidence via its staff that the noise was occurring. This demonstrated that it had reacted quickly and appropriately to the resident’s concern. In witnessing the noise itself, the landlord was able to take timely action in respect of the neighbour and issued them with a noise abatement notice under Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (section 80 notice) on 15 September 2023. It proactively kept the resident updated that it had taken this action and it noted that the resident was satisfied with this course of action at the time.
  3. The resident subsequently reported loud music to the landlord on 1 October 2023. The landlord’s records show that it responded to this report and attended the block for around 7 minutes at around 11pm. However, its records did not state if any noise had been witnessed on this occasion or if it had taken any action. The resident reported further loud music on 18 November 2023. The landlord’s records show that it cancelled this job. The reasons for this are not clear. As part of the management of ongoing noise disputes, it is reasonable to assume that the landlord’s records should have been comprehensive and should have documented its actions and findings following each report. This was a missed opportunity for it to demonstrate the action it had taken to try to support the resident.
  4. The resident spoke to the landlord on 28 November 2023 to discuss the ongoing noise and advised that he would see how the situation was in a weeks’ time. Although it is acknowledged by this Service that the landlord had to witness the noise to satisfy itself of a breach of the notice, it could have encouraged the resident to complete noise diaries or could have considered installing noise monitoring equipment at this time, as part of its evidence gathering process. This would have enabled it to understand the frequency and type of noise being complained about.
  5. The resident reported loud music again on 3 December 2023. The landlord attended for around 10 minutes but noted that it had not witnessed the music. Despite not witnessing the noise, the landlord treated the resident’s reports seriously and sent the neighbour a reminder notice in respect of the Section 80 notice. This was sent via post on 7 December 2023. It explained that if the landlord had evidence of loud music, it would apply to the Magistrates Courts for a Warrant of Entry and sound equipment would be seized. It also advised the neighbour that it could pursue a prosecution.
  6. The landlord subsequently witnessed loud music from the neighbour on 10 December 2023. It discussed internally whether it should seek to seize the neighbour’s noise amplifying equipment. It noted that the reminder letter had recently been posted and therefore it was likely that it had not been received by the neighbour. In light of this, it deemed it inappropriate to seek enforcement action at the time. It did, however, speak to the neighbour about the noise the following day. During this meeting, it advised that if it witnessed loud music again, it would seek enforcement action. The landlord kept the resident up-to-date with the actions it had taken and explained to him why it had not taken further action against the neighbour at the time.
  7. The landlord spoke to the resident on 5 January 2024 and the resident confirmed that it had been quiet for around 3 weeks. It advised him to continue to report any noise to its out of hours service. There was a gap in correspondence until 16 February 2024 when the landlord advised that it would compile a chronology and asked the resident for details of any new instances of ASB.
  8. As the landlord had not heard further from the resident, it contacted him on 12 March 2024 and reiterated the importance of him reporting any ASB, as it had not received any further reports. It provided him with noise diary sheets to record when the noise was occurring.
  9. The landlord reiterated on 21 March, 15 April and 1 May 2024 that it had not received further reports of ASB from the resident. It advised that without new reports, it would look to close the case. This decision was in line with its ASB policy. It advised that if new ASB occurred, it could take previous, recent incidents into consideration. If offered an online meeting with the resident to discuss its proposed action. In these circumstances this was a reasonable course of action for the landlord to take and showed that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. It also demonstrated that it had sought to manage the resident’s expectations as to the case management options available to it, when provided with no new reports of ASB. Furthermore, the landlord detailed what would be required before it could take further action.
  10. On 12 May 2024 the resident reported loud music after 11pm and provided a recording to the landlord. The landlord appropriately attended following this but noted that it had not witnessed the noise. The resident stated (within his complaint of 13 May 2024) that this was because the resident had installed CCTV cameras and could monitor when the landlord attended.
  11. On 29 May 2024, the resident informed the landlord that another occupant in the block was also being impacted by the neighbour’s noise. The landlord proactively wrote to the other occupant on 3 June 2024 to ask if they had heard the music. It noted that they had not, however it provided them with diary sheets to complete, should they witness any ASB. These actions demonstrated that the landlord had taken the report of the wider impact seriously and had sought to obtain evidence from another source. The landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations and advised that in the absence of any substantive evidence, it would not be able to take further action.
  12. The landlord advised within its stage 1 response (4 June 2024) that a new member of staff had been allocated the case in February 2024. It acknowledged that the resident felt that the case had not been reviewed during this time period. As such, it upheld this part of the complaint and provided the resident with a new point of contact to report further ASB. This demonstrated an acknowledgement of its failure and that it had tried to put things right for the resident.
  13. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord advised that due to the nature of its out of hours service, there had been times when it could not attend following reports from the resident. It acknowledged the frustration this had caused but encouraged the resident to continue to report incidents. Whilst this Service understands the resident’s frustrations, the landlord’s response that it was a city-wide service, that had to respond based on the need at the time, was reasonable. 
  14. The landlord wrote to the upstairs neighbour on 6 June 2024 and advised that it had a recording of the loud music. It advised that if it continued, it may apply for a warrant of entry from a Magistrates court to confiscate any noise making equipment from the property. It also noted that producing noise that amounted to ASB was a breach of tenancy, which could ultimately result in the loss of the home. Despite not witnessing the music itself, the landlord’s response demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s noise recording seriously and had further warned the neighbour about the potential consequences. In addition to this, the landlord requested to meet with the upstairs neighbour in June 2024 to discuss the allegations against them. Although this did not take place, due to the neighbour’s reluctance, it was appropriate for the landlord to attempt this as part of its case management to try to understand the neighbour’s perspective. It subsequently spoke to the neighbour about their alleged behaviour on 11 June 2024, although this was denied.
  15. The landlord explained within its stage 2 response (24 June 2024), that, as a breach of the Section 80 notice would be a criminal matter, any incident would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden of proof required evidence to support the case. This advice was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which states that in order to assess whether noise constitutes a ‘statutory nuisance’, the noise must be witnessed when it is occurring by a “competent officer”. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to have advised that it needed to witness the noise in order to take further action against the neighbour. It also appropriately advised the resident that there was a 6 month limit to bring a case before the Magistrates’ Court and as such it could not take enforcement action on the noise witnessed in December 2023.
  16. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the CCTV within its stage 2 response. It explained that privacy concerns around CCTV installations were not within the remit of the ASB team and that such concerns should be reported to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). It advised that its housing team were investigating whether it had given permission for the installation of the camera. This advice was in accordance with the information available to tenants on the landlord’s public facing website, namely that permission was required to install CCTV. Although this advice was appropriate, the landlord did not address this issue within its stage 1 response. As such, it took the landlord over a month to respond to this part of the resident’s complaint. When it did respond, it could not provide any details to the resident as to whether the neighbour had received such permission. This was not appropriate as the landlord should have comprehensive record keeping systems in place to enable it to ascertain if a tenant had been given permission to install CCTV. Although managed by a different department, this is something the landlord should have been able to clarify for the resident within its complaint response.
  17. It is noted that the resident had raised concerns that the neighbour was using the CCTV to monitor when the landlord was attending and using this to turn his music down during such times. The landlord did not address this specific concern during either of its complaint responses. It is noted by this Service that the landlord witnessed loud music in September 2023 as one of its staff members had left, whilst another remained with the resident. Subsequently the landlord acknowledged that the neighbour had turned the music up to coincide with its staff member leaving. This adds weight to the resident’s concern. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this and the presence of the neighbour’s CCTV further as part of its complaint responses.
  18. Within its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been caused frustration by its handling of the case when a new member of staff was allocated the matter in February 2024. Although this was an appropriate concession, this Service has also identified additional failures as follows:
    1. Its lack of thorough record keeping in respect of its actions following reports of music in late 2023 meant it could not demonstrate the action(s) it had taken to try to support the resident at the time.
    2. It missed an opportunity to encourage the resident to complete noise diaries or to consider installing noise monitoring equipment at an earlier opportunity to help it understand the frequency and type of noise.
    3. It failed to respond to the resident’s concerns in respect of the CCTV appropriately.
  19. Given the additional failures identified by this Service and the impact these had on the resident, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour. To acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by these failures, compensation of £300 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there have been failures which adversely affected the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. Pay £300 compensation to the resident to acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
    2. Confirm to the resident and this Service if the neighbour had permission to install CCTV and if not, what action the landlord will take in respect of this.
    3. Review its record keeping processes and provide this Service with a copy of its findings. This review should focus on how it will ensure that the outcome of noise reports are accurately recorded on its systems.