Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202316737)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316737

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

26 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), specifically noise nuisance.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat. The landlord is a local authority. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident but noted that the resident had reported a decline in her mental health because of the impact of the reported noise.
The resident has been reporting noise nuisance from her neighbour since 2022. The neighbour, who lives with her young children in the flat above, has been the source of the reported noise nuisance. According to the resident’s reports, she describes the noise as various sounds, including banging, shouting, scraping furniture, and loud television noise.
Between December 2022 and July 2023, the resident made at least 5 reports regarding the noise she was experiencing. During this time, the landlord visited the resident and her neighbour and offered mediation.
The resident complained to the landlord on 31 July 2023 and said:
1. the noise from the neighbour was unacceptable and was affecting her mental health and her ability to function at work
2. the landlord had not helped or taken her reports seriously
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 23 August 2023 and said:
1. the noise was deemed to be daily living noise
2. the neighbour was receptive to interventions and had taken measures to reduce the noise, for example, lowering the volume of their TV
3. as the property was converted, day to day living noise would be heard
4. the neighbour had agreed to mediation, but it had not heard if the resident was willing to participate
The resident escalated her complaint on 26 October 2023, stating that the outcome was that the landlord offered ‘no help whatsoever,’ which left her feeling unheard.
On 15 November 2023 the landlord provided a stage 2 response stating that:
1. the Tenancy Enforcement Officer met with the resident on 12 September 2023, and determined that the noise was deemed general living noise, which prevented any enforcement action
2. if the resident felt the noise exceeded general living noise, she was advised to notify the Community Protection Team
3. the resident had declined mediation
The resident contacted us in November 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had dismissed the noise issue and not investigated it fairly. She said the reported noise had impacted her mental health and was ruining her life.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that the landlord’s handling of the noise reports and the noise itself impacted her mental health. We have considered how the landlord has responded and the distress and inconvenience the resident said she experienced. However, the courts are better suited to consider a health-related claim. The resident should seek independent advice if she believes the landlord’s actions have affected her health.
The landlord did not provide a copy of a specific ASB policy, and we have not found a copy on its website. The landlord did provide a copy of its ‘ASB and crime information booklet for tenants and leaseholders,’ which was used for this assessment alongside its published information.
The landlord’s information booklet confirms that noise classed as impact noise from properties, such as footfall, children playing, cooking, and cleaning noises, should be referred to the Tenancy Officer.
The Tenancy Officer will establish an action plan with the resident, confirm in writing and provide clear information regarding possible outcomes and available actions. Based on the situation, the action plan may involve the following steps:
1. the resident speaking with her neighbour
2. mediation
3. the landlord gathering additional evidence from other witnesses
The landlord’s published information confirms that it will offer advice and try to resolve noise nuisances by writing to those making the noise. It confirms that it will risk assess noise reports and prioritise complaints where more than 1 neighbour is affected. It uses the Noise App (a tool designed to facilitate accurate reporting and documentation of noise disturbances, as confirmed on the landlord’s website) to investigate noise complaints.
The resident’s tenancy agreement does not prohibit hard flooring in upper flats. However, the landlord’s void standard advises against laminate or hard flooring due to the noise it can make and its impact on neighbours
Noise in shared buildings is common, especially in older ones with poor sound insulation. Everyday activities like walking, cleaning, children playing, and closing doors can create sounds that travel through walls and floors. While these noises are usually unintentional, they can frustrate residents, particularly in buildings lacking proper sound insulation.
Based on the available evidence, it is unclear when the neighbour installed laminate flooring. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that residents must seek advice before installing laminate flooring and ensure that suitable underlay is used for sound insulation.
Because we do not know when it was installed, we do not have evidence to confirm that the neighbour sought advice or that the underlay was checked to ensure it was sufficient to minimise the noise impact. The evidence does not show that the landlord attempted to clarify this matter despite the resident’s noise reports.
Our Spotlight report on noise complaints emphasises the importance of clear policies on hard flooring in multi-level buildings. It also advises landlords to proactively address noise complaints, considering technical factors (flooring and installations) and residents’ lived experiences.
In reviewing this case, we have evidence that the landlord followed the information booklet by:
1. interviewing both the resident and the neighbour
2. offering mediation twice
3. asking the neighbour to lower the TV volume
4. discussing a possible relocation for the resident
The landlord’s mediation offer was reasonable because it can help to resolve neighbour disputes. It can promote mutual understanding, enabling both sides to reach an agreement. Despite the resident declining the offer, thinking it would be unhelpful, the landlord’s proposal was reasonable and aligned with the details outlined in its booklet.
The landlord demonstrated that it conducted home visits and interviews with the neighbour and the resident during the complaint process. A home visit to the neighbour in 2022 confirmed the laminate flooring in the flat, with rugs placed ‘strategically’ throughout the property.
It was reasonable for the landlord to conduct a home visit to confirm the flooring type. But there is limited evidence that it did any more. For example, it did not confirm a suitable underlay despite it being identified as necessary in the repairs policy to minimise sound transference.
During the investigation process, the landlord confirmed that the noise reported by the resident was classified as general day-to-day noise, which typically includes sounds such as footsteps and household activities. However, aside from the resident’s personal accounts and specific descriptions of the noise, it remains unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion. To ensure a fair and thorough assessment, we would expect to see clear evidence that:
1. the resident was asked to document the noise in a comprehensive log, specifying the dates, times, duration, and the impact these noises had on her daily life, such as disruptions to sleep or difficulty concentrating
2. the resident received detailed instructions on how to properly record the noise, along with information about utilising the Noise App, the landlord proactively contacted other residents in the building to corroborate the noise reports, to support or dispute the resident’s reports
There is no evidence that any of these steps were taken. Consequently, the landlord’s investigation into the noise reports appears to have been limited in scope, raising concerns about its thoroughness and fairness.
The resident explained that she felt unheard and that the landlord did not take her reports seriously. She also mentioned on numerous occasions that she left her property because of the impact the noise was having on her mental health.
Our Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect, and Rights highlights concerns regarding landlords’ failure to acknowledge residents’ lived experiences. The landlord’s published information confirms that it will discuss the type of support the resident may need.
Internal records indicate that the landlord assessed the noise impact on the resident as ‘low.’ The landlord’s conclusion lacks clarity due to the absence of risk assessment evidence. It is unclear whether the resident participated in the assessment for the landlord to assess the impact on her well-being accurately and to know how best to support her.
The landlord’s informational booklet does not mention conducting a risk assessment. However, the published information states that the landlord does assess noise complaints and prioritises them accordingly. Therefore, we would expect to see evidence that some form of assessment was completed and documented. Without evidence, it is difficult to determine whether the landlord has considered the impact and appropriately acknowledged the resident’s lived experience.
The information booklet confirms that the Tenancy Officer will establish an action plan with the resident. There is no evidence of an action plan in this case. Without one, the landlord could not manage the resident’s expectations or clarify the actions it could take. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed that it could not take enforcement action because the noise was classified as general living noise. However, while the landlord may be limited in its ability to act against the noise itself, this does not absolve it of the responsibility to explore practical measures to reduce noise transference between properties.
Our Spotlight report on noise emphasises that landlords should adopt a proactive approach to managing noise issues, including the impact of building design and considering improvements, particularly where the reported noise affects residents’ quality of life. There is no evidence that the landlord did this.
The landlord missed opportunities to explore practical steps to resolve the complaint. For example:
1. sound-monitoring assessments
2. exploring the implementation of a Good Neighbour Agreement (the records indicate that the landlord stated it would consider this option in August 2023 if mediation was not agreed upon. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that it was progressed)
3. informal letters
Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise reports. This is because the landlord failed to:
1. conduct a comprehensive investigation into the noise complaints, limiting the inquiry to the resident’s descriptions without gathering additional evidence from neighbours or witnesses
2. provide clear guidance on how the resident could effectively capture and document the noise disturbances, including a recommendation to use the Noise App, to record noise levels and timestamp incidents
3. develop and communicate a detailed action plan to manage the resident’s expectations, outlining specific steps that would be taken in response to the reports and a timeline for follow-up
4. provide evidence of a risk assessment, appropriately considering the impact and directing the resident to relevant support services
5. implement or explore practical solutions and informal measures to help reduce the noise transference between properties to improve the living environment for the resident
We have considered compensation in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration, as there have been failures in the landlord’s handling of the reports. We have ordered the landlord to pay £300 for the distress and inconvenience she has caused.
The landlord’s response to the noise complaints was shaped by its ASB framework. However, this approach may disadvantage some residents, as the reported noise may not qualify as ASB. Analysing and addressing noise reports solely through the ASB lens can hinder the landlord’s ability to make fair and consistent decisions regarding these issues, which appears to have affected the landlord’s investigations in this case.
We recommend that the landlord consider creating a Good Neighbour Management Policy that effectively addresses cases where the noise falls outside ASB definitions to guarantee a fair and consistent strategy for managing noise complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, specifically noise nuisance.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. apologised to the resident for the failings identified
2. paid the resident £300 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the noise reports
3. the compensation should be paid directly to the resident
4. contacted the resident to discuss her noise concerns and updated the resident and us of its intentions regarding further investigation within 4 weeks
5. ensured its ASB policy and procedure are easily accessible on the website

Recommendation

The landlord should consider implementing a Good Neighbourhood Policy, or a policy separate from its ASB policy, to address noise complaints, as highlighted in our Spotlight report on noise.
The landlord should advise us of its intention regarding the recommendation within 4 weeks.