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

One Housing Group Limited (202404213)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404213

One Housing Group Limited

6 January 2025


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 handling of:
    1. Reports of noise nuisance.
    2. Request for improved soundproofing.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of a 2 bedroom flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. He lives in the property with his family. His tenancy began in August 2021.
  2. The resident had raised concerns about noise coming from his neighbour’s property which we considered in an earlier determination (202204783). The issues continued and the resident reported his concerns about the noises between 11pm and 8am with the landlord. He wanted the landlord to either take tenancy action against his neighbour as he believed the noise was a nuisance or soundproof the property. Between August 2023 and September 2023, the parties discussed the concerns in relation to the noise and soundproofing.
  3. The landlord told the resident that it would not be soundproofing the property as the building met building regulations at the time of its build. It offered him noise recording equipment and the services of a professional witness. It told him in September 2023 that the noise recordings he had provided did not show any tenancy breaches from his neighbour. It also supplied his neighbour with a vibrating mat, to aid in reducing noise transference from their washing machine. The landlord agreed to the installation of a noise machine in the resident’s property.
  4. The resident raised further concerns with the landlord on 18 September 2023. He told it that his neighbour had explained they had difficulties with controlling their child in the evening and apologised to him. They told him they would not be living at the property for a period of time. He asked the landlord to pause installation of the noise recording equipment as his neighbour would not be there. Once his neighbours moved back into the property, between October 2023 and November 2023 the resident raised further concerns.
  5. The resident reiterated to the landlord that he was taking prescribed medication to help him sleep and provided more noise recordings. He said responsibility lay with the landlord as it had taken no action against his neighbour for 3 years. He said they now had a dog that barked. He said he wanted it to take immediate action such as issuing a warning letter to them for causing Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) or annoyance, in line with “clause 16” of the lease. He also asked for permanent action such as the installation of an appropriate soundproofing system, underlay and carpet in order to reach the minimum standard. To have an adequate place to live and enjoy the quiet environment.
  6. Conversations continued between the parties, and in December 2023, the landlord confirmed it would install a noise machine in the resident’s property. It did so in January 2024, and he asked if it could provide him with a copy of the recordings. The resident raised a complaint on 8 February 2024 and said he had followed the landlord’s requests, and seen no actionable response, but prolonged delays. He raised his concerns about the noise and said “clause 16” of the lease led to a responsibility for a lack of disturbance between 11pm and 8am. He said to resolve the matter he wanted the landlord to:
    1. Implement a permanent mechanism to ensure its adherence to the terms of the lease. Such as installation of a suitable sound proofing system, along with an appropriate underlay and carpeting. It was imperative to meet the minimum standard required for a satisfactory living environment conducive to enjoying peace and quiet. This aligned with its responsibility under clause 16.
    2. Enforce the rules to ensure compliance by all residents. He wanted it to issue a warning, delivered in writing, in person, and via phone, to his neighbour. This should clarify that their behaviour was in direct conflict with the lease.
    3. Provide compensation of £100 per day of delay in issuing the noise recordings to him. This started from 25 January 2024, the week following the collection of the noise machine. He said it should pay him £10,000 for loss, compromise, or modification of the recordings.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 12 February 2024 and provided its stage 1 response on 22 February 2024. It:
    1. Apologised for the delays in the noise machine recordings, but it had explained the delay and provided regular updates. It told him it was reviewing them and would provide a comprehensive report once finalised. It explained there were a high number of recordings, so it took some time.
    2. Said it had spoken to his neighbour, provided the antivibration mats and it would be inappropriate to take enforcement action against them. This was because none of the recordings he provided were ASB and it considered the noises everyday living noise.
    3. Offered him a professional witness to attend and provide a further impartial report in relation to the noise transference and also offered mediation.
    4. confirmed it did not uphold his complaint.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied following the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint on 19 March 2024. He asked it to explain how it arrived at the decision that the matter did not constitute a statutory nuisance, raised concerns about the impact on his health, enjoyment of his home and the lack of recordings. He also raised the issue of soundproofing again and compensation.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 April 2024. It said it was not upholding his complaint and reiterated it would not be providing soundproofing. It explained what the results of the noise machine showed and said only 1 recording caused by his neighbour reached the required level for it to class the noise as a nuisance. The other recordings above the threshold were within his home, or those that it would not consider a tenancy breach against his neighbour. It said it noted that some of the noises were also during the day, when it would expect to hear household noise.

Post complaint

  1. Following the stage 2 response, the resident remained dissatisfied and raised his concerns with the landlord. He then raised his concerns with the Ombudsman on 30 April 2024. He raised concerns with stress, his quality of sleep, and life and told us that he was prescribed medication to help him sleep. He said the landlord had removed laminate flooring in his neighbour’s property after his intervention through the environmental health team. It had also provided his neighbour with the antivibration mats. To resolve the matter, he wanted his landlord to:
    1. install suitable soundproofing system to cover both airborne and impact noise, along with an appropriate underlay and carpeting. This was imperative to meet the minimum standard required for a satisfactory living environment conducive to enjoying peace and quiet. He said this aligned with clause 16 of the lease.
    2. Enforce the rules to ensure compliance by all residents. A consistent warning, delivered in writing, in person, and via phone, provided to his neighbour. This should clarify that their behaviour was in contradiction to Clause 16 of the lease.
  2. The landlord also provided the resident with the recordings of the noise machine in May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said that his concerns have been ongoing for a period of 3 years. We previously determined issues in relation to noise nuisance, and sound proofing in 202204783. As such we will not include any issues or timeframes considered within the earlier determination within this report. For the sake of clarity, this report will only consider issues from August 2023 onward.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about the effects of the situation on his health. However, the Ombudsman is unable to consider this. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. The courts must decide on personal injury claims as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, we will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on his health.
  3. The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if antisocial behaviour has occurred, or if the resident’s neighbour breached his tenancy agreement, as that is not within the Ombudsman’s remit. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord responded appropriately and reasonably to the resident’s reports, considering all the circumstances of the case.

Handling of reports of noise nuisance

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will not consider all instances of nuisance to be ASB. It says the type of nuisance that it may not consider ASB include one off incidents of noise disturbance, living or domestic noises such as ordinary conversations heard through walls or floors, neighbours walking around their home, domestic activities such as vacuuming or using washing machines. It says it considers these as “Local Noise”.
  2. The landlord’s neighbourhood management procedure also says that local noise includes moving furniture, footsteps, one-off parties, kitchen, and household appliances. It says that these noises may become ASB if the noise is persistent for longer than 30 minutes a day for more than 5 times a week. Depending on the type of noise, it might be appropriate to suggest the use of the Noise app to record the noise and send to use for review.
  3. Clause 16 of the lease states that at all times when not in use the entrance door to the demised premises will remain shut between 11PM and 8AM. This is to ensure that resident made no noise in any part of the building. In particular, between such hours to ensure that the main entrance door to the building and the demised premises is closed as quietly as possible and that no disturbance or annoyance is caused to the residents or occupiers of other flats in the building.
  4. Another leaseholder owns the upstairs neighbour’s property. Nevertheless, the landlord completed investigations into the resident’s reports, however the options open to the landlord to resolve the reported noise nuisance were limited.
  5. The landlord has shown that it took appropriate action around the resident’s concerns around the noise. The resident continued to raise his concerns around the noise nuisance and explained it worsened as his neighbour also got a dog which barked. The evidence shows that it investigated his concerns by considering both the noise app recordings, and the findings of the noise machine to reach a decision that the noise complained of was not a statutory noise nuisance. It also took a multiagency approach by contacting the environmental health team during the stage 2 response and found that the resident had no open complaints with them.
  6. There is also no evidence provided to suggest that the matter is a statutory noise nuisance. Although the noise machine found some issues, it found that these were internal to the resident’s property. It only found one instance of noise higher than allowed levels. Based on the evidence, there was not enough evidence to constitute a serious nuisance as one instance is not enough.
  7. For a landlord to take enforcement action against a resident, it must have adequate evidence to support its position. We would not expect a landlord to take enforcement action where it does not have enough evidence to support such action. The landlord appropriately showed how it reached its conclusion and its reasoning to the resident.
  8. The landlord also told the Ombudsman that it had taken further actions around the resident’s concerns. These included an earlier referral to the environmental health team and checking its records around other noise issues within the block relating to transference. It found that there had been no other reports within the block. It provided the upstairs neighbour with a vibrating mat for aid with the washing machine noise, and also discussed the issues with their landlord. It referred the resident to organisations which may be of assistance and also his GP.
  9. The resident also raised concerns about the quality of the carpet and underlay installed by his neighbour. The landlord appropriately told him that it could not stipulate the quality of underlay or carpet installed by his neighbour. He also looked to rely on the lease in relation to the level of noise between 11pm and 8am. However, this clause is in relation to the communal doors in the building, rather than noise within individual properties. As such, this clause does not place an obligation on the landlord to ensure there is no noise transference between properties.
  10. The resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s failure to provide him with the recordings of the noise machine. It is important to note that the landlord was under no obligation to provide him with these recordings. From analysing the wording of the landlord’s emails on both 5 December 2023 and 8 February 2024, it says it will provide the resident with a “report” and details of the noise recordings. It does not say that it would provide him with the recordings.
  11. However, as there was a delay in the report, it appropriately kept him informed of the reasons for the delay. It provided the recordings in May 2024, and explained the delay was due to the size of the recordings. There is no evidence that the delay caused the resident any significant distress or inconvenience. This is especially as it did not agree to provide the recordings in the first instance.
  12. The resident raised concerns with the Ombudsman during a call on 10 January 2025 in relation to the landlord’s findings. He queried how the landlord arrived at the decision that the louder noises occurred in his property. From the evidence provided, the landlord explained to the resident when it told him about the delay that it was waiting for a suitably qualified technician to review the recordings. As such it appropriately relied on the evidence of its expert in reaching its conclusions.
  13. The resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s investigation. He said he raised concerns about its failure to provide the recordings to him. When he raised this, it assigned the complaint to the member of staff who had agreed to provide the recordings. From the evidence, it was not particularly clear that he was raising a specific complaint about the individual. However once he clarified this, it issued the complaint to another member of staff. This was a reasonable action to take.
  14. The evidence suggests that the landlord acted appropriately around the resident’s concerns and as such the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration.

Soundproofing

  1. The Ombudsman previously explained in 202204783 that the landlord did not have an obligation to install soundproofing in the resident’s property. The landlord explained to the resident that as he was a leaseholder, if he wanted to install soundproofing in his property, he could. It told him to let it know and it would provide him with the alterations form.
  2. The resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s failure to insulate his neighbour’s property. However, as another leaseholder owned the property, it again has no obligation to soundproof his neighbour’s property. As such the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of soundproofing.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of noise nuisance.
    2. Request for improved soundproofing.

Recommendation

  1. Provide the resident with an explanation of its responsibilities to both him and his neighbour as a freeholder as opposed to a landlord in relation to the noise reported. It should explain its responsibilities clearly around insulating both his and his upstairs neighbour’s properties and the building.