London Borough of Croydon (202214311)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214311

London Borough of Croydon

22 May 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance by her neighbour.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a council. The property is a third-floor, 2-bedroom flat within a tower block. The resident’s reports in this case are made about the tenant of the property above hers (hereinafter referred to as the neighbour).
The resident submits that her reports of noise by the neighbour date back to 2019, and that she attended mediation with them at that time. There was then a break in reports until January 2021 and another hiatus until April 2021. The resident’s reports in 2021 largely concerned: loud banging; hitting on the neighbour’s floor; talking loudly; children crying; and doors slamming.
The landlord collected a noise recording device from the property in April 2021, listened to the recordings, and concluded in May 2021 that there was no discernible noise. It therefore planned to visit the property to listen and see what noise the resident was experiencing, although it is not clear from the evidence whether this visit went ahead or if the findings of the noise recordings were explained to the resident. The landlord also raised concerns about the resident’s welfare and made enquiries of external agencies but found she was not deemed eligible for additional support.

Summary of events

Following a break in reports of more than a year, the resident obtained CCTV footage on 2 June 2022 which showed the neighbour hitting his stick on her front door in an aggressive manner. It is not clear whether this was sent to the landlord at that time, and there is no evidence of any further noise reports being made by the resident until 7 July 2022.
There is no evidence to confirm exactly what action the landlord took until 28 July 2022, when it offered to mediate between the parties. The resident refused the offer on 1 August 2022 on the basis that a previous mediation attempt had failed.
The resident recorded further CCTV footage showing her neighbour hitting his stick on her front door in an aggressive manner on 3 August 2022, but it is not clear when this was sent to the landlord.
On 4 August 2022, the landlord noted the noise reports had progressed into anti-social behaviour (ASB) after the resident said she had evidence that a different neighbour glued her locks. No evidence of this has been provided to this Service. The landlord said it wrote to the resident, the neighbour, and the other neighbour to attend separate ASB interviews.
The landlord completed the interviews on 10 August 2022 in the presence of a police officer. Both the resident and the neighbour signed 6 month Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABC), however it is not clear if the other neighbour also signed an ABC. The ABCs said if either party failed to adhere to the terms, the next step would be an application to the court for an injunction and/or the landlord would initiate possession proceedings.
Despite the ABCs, the resident reported further noise from the neighbour 2 days later. In response, the landlord said it offered to visit her but did not receive a reply. No evidence of this offer has been provided, so it is unclear how the offer was made, or whether the resident received it.
Following receipt of another noise report, the landlord emailed the resident on 6 September 2022. It said it had offered to attend her property to assess the noise levels and offered to provide a noise recording device for a second time, but she had not responded. It said she would need to work with it to resolve the issues and offered to visit on 9 September 2022 when it would also talk to the neighbour. There is no evidence to show if the resident replied or if the visit took place.
The landlord’s notes said it visited the neighbour on 28 September 2022 who reported that the situation had improved, but there is no evidence to confirm if it visited the resident at the same time.
The resident contacted this Service on 4 October 2022, explaining that she had made numerous reports of noise to the landlord without the issue being resolved. She said she had not received a response to formal complaints made on 29 August and 19 September 2022 (although no evidence of these complaints has been provided from either party).
After contact from this Service, the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 11 November 2022, when it said it had contacted the resident on multiple occasions and offered mediation but she had refused. It noted that she had emailed noise reports/complaints to a generic inbox, rather than her tenancy officer, and it provided the tenancy officer’s contact details.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 20 November 2022 she said she:
1. Had suffered with noise for the past 5 years and there was lots of noise early morning, late in the evening and through the night which included: loud bangs; slammed doors; the neighbour’s floor being hit, scratched, and jumped on; and drilling late in the evening.
2. Was threatened after she asked the neighbour to stop the noise, and the neighbour had hit his walking stick on her front door.
3. Was stressed, could not sleep, had become very depressed and could not cope with the situation anymore.
4. Had attended mediation with the neighbour in 2019 but it had not helped.
5. Asked the landlord to install insulation in the ceiling but this was declined (no evidence of this request or the landlord’s response has been provided).
The landlord acknowledged the email the following day and responded on 29 November 2022. It had offered home visits, to supply another noise recording device, and to engage on many occasions without success. Unless new information was brought to its attention it would be unable to assist further. The resident replied and said she had sent CCTV and further recordings of noise on 12 August 2022, but did not know what else she could do.
In the landlord’s email of 11 December 2022 it advised the resident it could only act where there was established noise nuisance. It said she could escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she was able to provide significant information which might change its original complaint response.
No evidence of the resident’s email response to the landlord has been provided, but the landlord replied again on 10 January 2023, as follows:
1. The resident had sent the same email to report noise on multiple occasions and it asked her not to send it again.
2. It sympathised with her situation but she had wasted its time by repeatedly sending the same email without supporting evidence or additional information.
3. It had previously installed a noise recording device and concluded the noise was normal domestic noise.
4. It had offered home visits and to source another noise recording device but the resident had declined these offers.
5. The resident could source a quote for insulation which it would consider installing if the insulation passed building safety checks, but it would not pay for the work.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 April 2023, repeating the same concerns about noise, and the landlord responded 5 days later. It acknowledged that unwanted noise at any time can feel invasive and disturbing, but without evidence that it was more than normal domestic noise, it could not take further action. Despite the resident sending multiple similar emails, no such evidence had been provided. It asked the resident to provide further copies of noise/CCTV recordings for it to review.
The resident emailed 13 noise/CCTV recordings to the landlord on 19 April 2023 including the 2 videos of her neighbour hitting his stick against her door, and a third that appeared to show him shouting through the door.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 May 2023, as follows:
1. It had provided a noise recording device to the resident, but this failed to provide useable evidence.
2. It offered to mediate between the parties, and the case had been closed and classed as normal domestic noise.
3. It had listened to the 13 recordings, and none of them provided tangible evidence of what could be termed a ‘statutory noise’, and the only noise appeared to be from either within the resident’s property or faint traffic noise.
4. The law enables it to act against those who cause a noise nuisance, but it cannot deal with noise that arises from normal day-to-day activities.
5. Without evidence of noise considered above normal domestic noise, it could not take any enforcement action.
6. It had reviewed the CCTV but, as there was no sound, it was not possible to know what the neighbour had said and in any case the parties had signed ABCs which were dated after the CCTV footage.
7. It would consider whether further mediation would be beneficial, and speak to the neighbour.
8. If the resident remained unhappy, she could escalate her complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
The resident reported the same noise issues to the landlord on 28 January and 5 February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The events of 2019 to 2021 are noted above for context, but there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made until the Ombudsman’s intervention in October 2022. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of the issues arising, so that the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme).
Therefore, we would reasonably consider events from October 2021 onwards. However, as there is no evidence of any reports being made by the resident between May 2021 and June 2022, the latter date is taken as the starting point for this investigation. This is when the resident began actively pursuing her reports and asking the landlord to investigate and resolve her concerns.

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

It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether ASB or noise nuisance has taken place. Instead, this Service’s role is to consider the appropriateness and adequacy of the actions taken by the landlord to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB. The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord acted reasonably, proportionately and in line with its policies and procedures in response to these reports and the subsequent formal complaint.
Noise nuisance can be difficult to tackle and requires a landlord to consider whether the noise is anti-social in nature or normal living noise. Consideration should also be given to whether the noise is reasonable or within statutory levels. There is no single defining factor as to what constitutes a statutory noise. It is an assessment of a number of factors including the level, frequency and timing of the noise.
The resident has accused her neighbour of noise nuisance, which would fall under the heading of ASB, as set out in the landlord’s ASB policy. The landlord has adopted the definition of ASB as detailed in section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which states that “ASB means behaviour by a person which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person”. The landlord’s ASB policy says it can take informal action to reports of ASB which includes mediation, warnings and ABCs, before the possibility of formal action such as possession action or injunctions.
After receipt of the resident’s noise reports in July 2022, the landlord initially offered to mediate between the resident and her neighbour. This was in line with its ASB policy, but the resident declined as the 2019 mediation attempt had been unsuccessful. Following reported ASB the landlord acted promptly and again in line with policy and wrote to the resident and her neighbour to arrange ASB interviews. The interviews were conducted in a timely manner 6 days later, and resulted in both parties signing 6 month ABCs. This was an appropriate response and could have allowed the neighbour to modify any behaviour which may be causing excessive noise which they were unaware of, and bring the parties together.
Following further noise reports the landlord again took reasonable steps and offered to visit the resident and to provide a noise recording device (for a second time). As the resident did not respond, it sent an email to explain its position and that it required the resident to engage, which was a reasonable approach to take. After no response from the resident it also visited the neighbour.
There is, therefore, little evidence to suggest the resident engaged with the landlord in an effort to resolve the noise issues, as she refused mediation, did not respond to offers of home visits, and did not accept the installation of a noise recording device for a second time. The landlord also considered the resident’s request for insulation to be installed, but after the lack of engagement it was not unreasonable to confirm it would not pay for the work.
In summary, the landlord took proportionate and reasonable actions in response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance by the neighbour. It followed its ASB policy and made reasonable attempts to resolve the situation for the resident. As a result, there was no failure by the landlord in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB.
However, it is not clear whether the landlord investigated whether there was noise transference, or made any attempt to see whether anything could be done to reduce the domestic noise between the properties. This would have been good practice and could have provided a possible way forward. On that basis, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider this when handling future noise reports.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says a complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however expressed, whether justified or not.” It says it has a 2 stage procedure, and the target response time for both stages is 20 working days from receipt of the complaint.
There is no evidence the landlord clearly explained to the resident the difference between submitting a report about a neighbour’s noise (thus beginning its ASB process) and making a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of those reports (thus initiating its complaints process). The evidence suggests the landlord’s complaint investigation was only prompted by this Service’s intervention in October 2022. This was after the resident had not received a response to 2 attempts she felt she had made to raise a formal complaint, which may have been a failing.
However, no evidence of the attempts to raise a formal complaint have been provided to this Service, so it is not possible to say with certainty that the landlord unreasonably delayed in that regard. Instead, the landlord should have clearly explained how the resident could raise a complaint, or explained why it would not investigate her complaint. This was a failing which caused the resident inconvenience by having to contact this Service in order to get a complaint response.
This Service requested a stage 1 response from the landlord on 26 October 2022. Although the response was sent 12 working days later, it did not acknowledge any of the resident’s frustration or inconvenience, failed to acknowledge whether it could have done more to deal with the noise, and failed to apologise for the lack of response or help in the resident accessing its complaints process.
The resident replied to the stage 1 response on 20 November 2022, but rather than escalating the complaint to stage 2, the landlord said she would need to provide further information that could change the complaint outcome. Whilst it explained why it would not escalate the complaint, it did not advise the resident of her right to approach this Service in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which was a failing.
The landlord ultimately issued its stage 2 response after the resident provided further noise recordings and CCTV. While this response was sent within its policy timeframe, it incorrectly referred the resident to the LGSCO, which was a failing. Further, in both the stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord failed to acknowledge any failings, did not make any attempt to put things right (in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles), and failed to fully address the detriment to the resident. As a result, there was maladministration and further action is needed to address the complaint handling satisfactorily.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy does not set out guidelines for what amount it will consider for failures, but it follows this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests that an award of £200 for distress and inconvenience may remedy cases where maladministration has been found and the impact on the resident is not considered to have been permanent.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance by her neighbour.
2. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused by its failings in complaint handling.

Recommendation

Consider whether it would be appropriate to arrange for a surveyor to attend if it has not already done so, and determine if there is an issue with noise transference and if there is anything further that could be done.