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

Norwich City Council (202311617)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311617

Norwich City Council

20 December 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 antisocial behaviour in relation to noise nuisance.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has stated he is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord was not able to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement stating it was due to the age of the tenancy.
  2. In March 2022, the resident reported that the neighbour in the flat above him were causing antisocial behaviour (ASB) by making excessive noise. He submitted recordings via the landlord’s noise app as evidence of the noise over the next year. The landlord determined the noise reported was everyday living noise.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 8 September 2023 about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB. It issued its stage 1 response on 3 October 2023. It maintained it was everyday living noise, his case had been subsequently closed which meant it had not been receiving his recent noise app recordings, but it had arranged for a new case to be opened. It apologised for any inconvenience caused.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 3 October 2023 saying he felt the noise was not general living noise and he was being targeted by his neighbour.
  5. The stage 2 response was issued on 3 November 2023. The landlord reiterated its previous response and stated there was no evidence the resident was targeted by the neighbour.

Assessment and findings

  1. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of antisocial behaviour. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbour amounted to antisocial behaviour, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with his reports appropriately and reasonably. The Ombudsman is unable to establish whether a party is responsible for anti-social behaviour so cannot tell the landlord to act against the neighbour.
  2. When it receives any reports of ASB, the landlord would require evidence to fully investigate the reports made, conclude and, if required, take appropriate action. For the landlord to be able to take any enforcement action it would require evidence of any breaches of the tenancy agreement or its ASB policy.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint stated it would contact a resident within 5 days to acknowledge their complaint, provide regular updates with the steps it was taking to deal with the complaint by letter, email, phone, by visiting or via the noise app and would explain what support it, and other agencies could offer for example mediation and tenancy support. For noise complaints the complainant is to download the noise app if they had a smartphone/smart device to enable them to record the noise for it to listen to.
  4. The ASB policy states once sufficient information is received, it will explain to the witness the proposed course of action, outlining clearly the actions it can and cannot take based on the available information. These include contacting the alleged perpetrator via letters, telephone calls and interviews which it states in a large proportion of cases does resolve the matters. It may also use processes including mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts, surveillance, and injunctions.
  5. The landlord’s ASB policy refers to the tenancy conditions that cover the main forms of ASB, noting that section 5 of the tenancy agreement states a tenant must not behave in the neighbourhood in a way that is (or is likely to be) a nuisance or annoyance to other people. Examples included loud music and other unreasonable noise, noisy DIY for prolonged periods or late at night and door slamming.
  6. The ASB policy also states that when it received a report the landlord would make an initial assessment of the severity, impact and nature of each report, arrange an appropriate response through referring to its relevant service or other agencies, adopt a case management approach whereby the actions of its services are tracked and give victims a single point of contact.
  7. The resident’s complaints were about his neighbour in the property above and centred on his reports the neighbour was making constant excessive noise including banging and use of taps that cause pipes to make noise. The landlord opened a case on 24 March 2022, and asked the resident to provide noise recordings through its noise app.
  8. The resident made a substantial amount of noise reports to the landlord using its noise app. For the period covered in this investigation, there were 199 recordings submitted between 22 March 2022 and 10 November 2023. For some of the reports he commented on the nature of the noise and how it affected him. From the evidence provided some reports of noise related to drilling and banging. The reports he made indicated these events were taking place during daytime hours.
  9. Between 26 March 2022 and 31 January 2023, the resident submitted 66 noise recordings to the landlord through its noise app. Its records do not show the type of noise but show on 9 October 2022 he informed it the noise was excessive drilling and on 20 November 2022 involved loud banging including to pipes which he said woke him despite wearing ear plugs. He informed it the noise was giving him anxiety and asked it to act.
  10. On 2 February 2023, the resident submitted an ASB nuisance form. He said that every morning for the previous 5 years, he woke up to the neighbour above him banging on the floor early in the morning.
  11. It is not clear from the landlord records when it initially offered mediation to the resident but on 3 February 2023 it noted that the resident, when calling about his ASB case, mentioned mediation but said he had not heard from the mediator for about 2 months. It had found mention of the mediator in a previously closed case. The same day it noted it had spoken to the mediator who said they had attempted to speak to the resident, had not heard back from him but would look to contact him again.
  12. On 14 February 2023, the resident stated in a noise app submission that the neighbour had drilled 159 times in 4yrs, there was not any change in the tone of the drill which meant they was using the drill for noise purposes only and no one had ever questioned why they was continually drilling. He said on that day the drilling had occurred 10 times and asked the landlord to check why the behaviour was still being allowed to continue. There was no evidence it responded to his concerns.
  13. On 8 March 2023, the resident reported noise through the noise app and noted the neighbour was making the bathroom pipes bang. He told the landlord he had autism and chronic auto immune liver disease, which affected his health and asked why he were subjected to the same abuse after more than 14 years.
  14. The landlord would be expected, if it were not already aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, to take steps to assess the impact on him. There is no evidence it did so at that time.
  15. The landlord did respond to the resident on 13 March 2023 and said it had listened to his recordings, but they were everyday living noise and would not be enforceable. It was not clear from its correspondence with him what records it had listened to and over what period. It, however, arranged a visit with him for the following week.
  16. On 23 March 2023, the landlord’s records show it noted that it spoke with the resident regarding his on-going noise complaint. It advised that the noise app recordings showed that the noise was daily living noise, or nothing had recorded. He had said that 1 of the neighbours often “snarled” at him, and advised he did not talk to either of them. He had said that the neighbour hit the floor with a hammer. He said about 3 years ago he would put on his tv, and the neighbour would do things – such as banging – to make his life difficult, and he thought they were playing on his autism. He also stated that previously there had been mediation involvement. It asked about his autism, and established he has sensory process issues so struggled to handle noise, and it asked him if he would like help in relation to his autism. He said he would, so it would email him some information.
  17. The landlord completed a risk assessment the same day, finding it was a medium risk. Its assessment of support needs detailed the resident’s health conditions. It followed this up with an email to him on 27 March 2023 which confirmed its discussions and provided him with a list of websites that provided support for autism.
  18. The landlord completing the risk assessment and acknowledgement of the resident’s autism was positive and it took some steps to try and assist the resident with referrals to support services which was an appropriate step for it to take. This was, however, the first evidence of it conducting a risk assessment in the resident’s case despite its case records showing the case was open in March 2022.
  19. The resident submitted a total of 6 noise recordings in March 2023 and noted on 26 March 2023 that the noise was pipes banging and thumping on the floor above his living room several times. He noted the time was the early hours of the morning. The landlord’s records show it tried to call the neighbour on 5 April 2023 but there was no answer. There was no further evidence of its attempts to speak to the neighbour.
  20. The resident submitted 5 recordings through the noise app during April 2023 and a mediator contacted the landlord on 18 April 2023 and informed it they had recently seen him and discussed about engaging with the correct services to help with his autism and he was happy to engage. They left him the number to contact for help with his autism and would keep in touch with him.
  21. On 24 April 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and said after reviewing the noise app recordings and speaking with him and the neighbour, the noise was daily living noise and not enforceable. It said it would close the case.
  22. The landlord’s case notes stated the noise recorded was not noise nuisance but domestic living noise or no noise recorded. It noted it had spoken to the neighbour and did not feel the noise was deliberate.
  23. Although the landlord’s records stated the reason for its decision, there was little evidence of the investigation it took. The evidence provided shows it attempted to contact the neighbour once in April 2023 but was unsuccessful in discussing the noise reports with them. At this stage, the resident had submitted 91 noise recordings since the case was opened in March 2022. It has not evidenced that it had assessed each noise report or shown how it concluded the noise was everyday living noise.
  24. The landlord had appropriately considered the resident has autism and provided him with website of support services to help and support him. However, although it noted in its closure notes that he was sensitive to noise, it has failed to show that it considered his autism in relation to the noise reports he was making and if the noise was disproportionally affecting him due to his disability.
  25. On 25 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord with a further noise report stating there was a loud bang from the upstairs neighbour which sounded like the neighbour hit the floor with a hammer. He followed this up on 28 April 2023 with a noise app submission that stated the neighbour had used a hammer on the floor above his living room for several minutes without warning. There is no evidence the landlord responded to these reports.
  26. On 31 May 2023, the resident informed the landlord that the neighbour continued to drop things on the floor, which he believed was a hammer and at one point he heard the noise made 50 times. It contacted him the next day and noted mediation was currently occurring and would be keeping an eye on the case.
  27. Between 1 June 2023 and 27 September 2023, the resident made a further 65 submissions of noise through the landlord’s noise app. There is no evidence it either responded or considered any of those reports. The reports made during that time consisted of noise from taps / pipes on 23 occasions including 14 recorded after 10pm and banging, walking, and dragging furniture, door slamming, and drilling.
  28. The resident’s complaint to the landlord on 8 September 2023 stated that he had experienced ongoing noise issues with his neighbour for the previous 4 years. He regularly communicated the noise via the noise app but felt the ASB team were not following it up or doing anything about it. He felt if the issue had been managed efficiently and effectively, the noise issues would have stopped. He advised that when he used the toilet facilities in his property, the neighbour deliberately made a significant amount of noise by either banging or turning the taps on full which could be picked up on the noise app. He had reported many issues regarding the noise nuisance caused by the neighbour but felt nothing was done.
  29. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 3 October 2023 states that it had reviewed his previous case and found there was no cause to believe the neighbour was targeting their actions towards him. It believed the noise reported was domestic living noise and had closed the case. That meant it was not notified by the recent noise app recordings he had submitted. It had arranged to open a new case; it would investigate the recordings he had submitted and provide a response.
  30. The landlord’s response failed to offer any substantial explanation to the issues he had raised in his complaint. Although it stated the noise was domestic living noise it failed to explain why it made that conclusion or over what period it had investigated. It also failed to explain the actions it took in concluding the neighbour was not targeting him especially given one of the aspects of his complaint was the noise reports were not being investigated sufficiently. While it was positive that it stated it had opened a new case and it would contact him, it did not provide him with a timescale for that contact to be made.
  31. The landlord spoke to the resident on 4 October 2023 regarding the noise which he reported occurred every day and happened day and night. He said that he had mediation, but the neighbour did not want anything to do with mediation. It told him to submit recordings on the noise app.
  32. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 11 October 2023 stating that he was dissatisfied with the response. He did not believe the noise was within the grounds of general domestic noise and did not agree with the landlord’s statement that he was not targeted. He said banging on the floor 50 times in a row to the point he was shaking was not general domestic noise. The noise had been ongoing for over 4 years and was seriously impacting his physical but mainly his mental health of which he already struggled with autism to the point of it being unbearable to live with.
  33. Following the escalation request the landlord did contact the resident on 12 October 2023 with its records noting that between 7 and 10 October 2023 the neighbour was making a huge amount of noise, but it had been quiet since 11 October 2023. It told him it would keep an eye on his case and monitor the noise app for recordings. It contacted him again on 19 October 2023 and he confirmed it had been reasonably quiet, and it agreed to recontact him on 26 October 2023. The landlord’s action here was appropriate as it was clearly keeping in contact with the resident.
  34. Between the 26 October 2023 and 31 October 2023, the resident submitted a further 10 noise app recordings. These records noted he said the noise consisted of banging, dragging furniture and noise from taps when used.
  35. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 November 2023. It said it appeared its officers had investigated his previous reports, had listened to noise app recordings, found the noise was related to typical daily living noise, there was no evidence he was being targeted, and the case was closed. It apologised that it had not responded to his latest noise app recordings as it was not notified about them until his stage 1 complaint. Once notified its officer opened a new ASB case and its officers were investigating. It had asked an ASB manager to make a referral to a team that specialised in assisting people whose wellbeing was suffering because of something linked to their household circumstances. In his stage 1 complaint he had told it the neighbour banged on pipes and ran taps when he used his bathroom. It said it asked an ASB manager to arrange to inspect the plumbing in the building.
  36. The landlord’s response again failed to provide a full explanation of the findings it had made since the stage 1 response in relation to the noise recordings the resident had submitted and the outcome of the case it said it would open. While it was positive that it informed him it would be investigating the noise from the taps, this offer came at least 11 months after he first informed it of the pipes making noise.
  37. In summary the landlord did take some positive steps in referring the resident for mediation and providing him with details of support services for his autism. However, in relation to the noise reports he had made, it has shown no evidence of any of the investigations it had made including its assessments of the noise recordings leading to its determination that it was general living noise, what steps it took in investigating the reports when speaking to the neighbour, whether it appropriately considered if the noise was having a disproportionate effect on his autism and if the noise reported via the pipes may have been linked to a repair issue it may have had a responsibility to repair at an earlier stage. This was service failure by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in relation to noise nuisance.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in relation to noise nuisance.
    3. Contact the resident and establish if he still requires it to investigate his reports of noise and if so, open a new case and investigate in accordance with its ASB policy.