Sanctuary Housing Association (202209027)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209027

Sanctuary Housing Association

5 March 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 handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident occupies a 4 bedroom first floor flat and has held an assured tenancy with a housing association landlord since 29 January 2018. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 31 July 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman to explain that she had been subjected to noise nuisance from neighbouring residents. She explained that she had reported it to the landlord in September 2020. Yet despite having completed an Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) diary and despite providing noise recordings to the landlord, nothing had changed. The resident said that the landlord had refused her request of soundproofing in the property and had failed to take legal action against the alleged perpetrator of the noise.

Scope of investigation

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
This means that neither the issues concerning water ingress into the property from a neighbouring one, or the landlord’s refusal to renovate the resident’s kitchen will be considered as part of this investigation. This is because the resident raised both issues after the landlord’s formal stage 2 response and consequently it did not form part of the landlord’s internal complaints process.
In reporting of the issues complained about, the resident explained to this Service that the noise nuisance has impacted on her household’s mental well-being. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.

Summary of events

On 24 August 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that she had experienced continuous loud noise from the property above that occurred throughout the night, and which had been ongoing for the previous 2 years. She said that she had attempted to speak with the neighbours in the flat above but that it had not resolved the noise. She explained that the noise had worsened over the previous 5 months. She explained that she had video recordings of the noise.
On 3 September 2020 the landlord phoned the resident to find out more about the situation described and explained that it would send a letter to the neighbour regarding the noise complaint. The landlord has provided evidence confirming that a letter was sent to the address from which it was alleged the noise was coming from. The landlord explained that it had received a report of noise nuisance for the property and that it would monitor the situation.
According to landlord notes, on 7 September 2020 the landlord completed both a vulnerability assessment matrix and action sheet with the complainant. This Service has seen a copy of the vulnerability assessment matrix completed by the landlord. The situation and issues described were given a score of 14, which corresponded with a medium risk and which, according to the matrix, would require a response within 3 working days. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the landlord’s action sheet.
The landlord sent ASB diary sheets to the resident on 22 September 2020 and asked her to return it once the booklet was full. The resident returned the booklet on 3 October 2020. The diary showed that the noise occurred almost daily between 25 September 2020 and 3 October 2020 and was usually between 7am and 8.30am and for approximately an hour and a half every evening, normally after 7pm but before 11pm. The resident also sent video recordings to the landlord, but this Service has not seen these.
Landlord notes dated 28 September 2020 show that the landlord had spoken with the resident following a conversation it had with the neighbour who was allegedly making the noise. The neighbour denied making the noise and provided details of their family’s usual daily actions.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 October 2020 for an update and again on 23 October 2020. The landlord responded that day explaining that the timing of the noise reported would be considered normal household noise and it would only take action if the noise was from 11pm onwards. Nevertheless, given that the resident had reported the noise as being excessive the landlord said it would instruct an independent service to act as an independent witness. It also said it would arrange for noise monitoring equipment to be installed.
The independent witness report showed that they attended the property on 30 October 2020 between 8pm and 10pm and reported medium level shouting and heavy walking from the flat above. The witness report described the noise as almost constant and sounding like an “autistic child”. The independent witness stated that if the noise was from an autistic child it would recommend support rather than enforcement.
Approximately a week later the resident contacted the landlord again explaining that despite the independent witness attending her property the noise continued. The landlord responded the same day explaining that the independent witness would need to attend on a second occasion and added that as soon as the noise monitoring equipment became available it would arrange for it to be installed.
The independent witness went to the property again on 13 November 2020 at 8pm. They reported hearing heavy footsteps walking above the lounge area for the duration of the visit, they stated that the walking did not appear to be deliberate but believed that it was due to the fabric of the building. They added that it sounded like the flat above had laminate flooring and suggested that it was a sound-proofing issue rather than ASB. Additionally, they said that some of the noise sounded like an “autistic child shouting”.
Landlord notes showed that the landlord discussed the contents of the witness report with the resident and said that it would enforce carpet being laid in the flat above. The notes also showed that the landlord visited the flat above the resident on 25 November 2020 who said they did not have an autistic child. The landlord reported that the property was carpeted throughout except for the lounge and the hallway. During the visit the neighbour also reported hearing noises similar to the ones described by the resident.
According to the landlord notes, the following day the landlord spoke with the resident and explained that noise travels especially with the poor insulation in the block. It added that it would install sound monitoring equipment.
The landlord’s notes showed that on 2 December 2020 a meeting was arranged between the resident and the neighbour in the flat above. It is not clear to this Service if this meeting took place.
On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident in relation the noise complaint and set out the findings from the independent witness. It explained that the independent witness did not believe the noise was deliberate or malicious. The landlord added that the report mentioned the noise sounded like “an autistic child shouting”. The landlord explained that it did not have any evidence to take the case forward as an ASB case and therefore wanted to arrange for the landlord’s own noise monitoring equipment to be installed, but due to the lockdown restrictions in place at the time it was unable to do so.
The resident responded the same day stating that she did not feel like the landlord was making progress and suggested that it advise the neighbour to lay carpet and suitable underlay.
On 14 December 2020 the neighbour in the flat above the resident contacted the landlord and made a counter claim against the resident and reiterated that they also experienced the same noise described by the resident but suggested it was coming from a different flat.
On 18 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord for an update, she explained that the situation had not improved.
On 24 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord again explaining that despite having gone through the ASB process with the landlord it had failed to bring a resolution. She explained that she had attended mediation and completed the ASB diary but to no avail. The resident explained that she felt ignored and that her emails had been dismissed and left unanswered since 2 December 2020. The resident added that the situation was impacting on her mental well-being. The landlord responded the following day and stated that it would respond accordingly to the issues raised.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 June and 17 June 2021 for an update.
Between 22 June and 20 August 2021 there was an email exchange between the resident and landlord in relation to the ongoing noise complaint. The landlord stated that it should pursue legal action against the alleged perpetrators of the noise and would need to build a case with the evidence the resident provided. While the Ombudsman has not been provided with a date, it is clear from the evidence provided that the resident was instructed by the landlord to download the noise monitoring app and to use this to capture evidence of the noise. On 5 July 2021 the landlord provided the resident with guidance on how to use the app. On 9 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she could see the recordings were showing as pending review and asked landlord when it would review them. The resident contacted the landlord again the following week for a response.
On 21 July 2021 the landlord advised the resident that the recordings were not attached to the email and asked the resident to resend them. The resident replied the same day explaining that the recordings were no longer available to her, and that according to the app the recordings were pending review.
The resident contacted the landlord again for an update on 4 August 2021.The following day the landlord explained that it was unable to access the recordings and that the nominated landlord employee who would be able to grant access, was unavailable. The landlord explained that it would not be able to get access until the nominated person returned to work. Two weeks later the resident asked again for an update on progress. The landlord advised that the resident should continue collecting evidence and that it understood it had previously advised the resident that it would take legal action against the alleged perpetrator of the noise. It added that it was hopeful it would get access to the recordings within the following 2 weeks.
Evidence showed that the resident asked the landlord for an update again on 8 October 2021. However, the landlord was still, at that point, unable to access the recordings in the app.
Landlord notes showed that it installed its own noise monitoring equipment at the resident’s property on 27 October 2021 and that it had said it would refer the case to the independent witness again. Evidence also showed that the landlord contacted the local authority to install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property. However, the local authority denied the request on the basis that it was still not entering peoples homes due to the pandemic.
On 17 November 2021, following contact from the resident stating that the noise monitoring equipment was not working the landlord visited the property and removed the equipment. In its notes it stated that it ‘had no option but to take the noise monitoring equipment away.’ It explained that this was due to the resident having unplugged the device and all data having been lost.
Notes provided by the independent witness showed that it attended the resident’s property again on 27 November 2021 and reported single loud bangs and an adult voice shouting but did not consider the noise deliberate. The report confirmed that the noise was coming from the property above. The independent witness agreed to also visit the neighbours in the property above who also reported hearing the noises. It is not clear to this Service if the visit ever took place.
Landlord notes dated 18 January 2022 confirmed that it would obtain a quote for carpet to be fitted in the lounge area at the flat above the resident’s, and on 22 February 2022 the landlord advised the resident of the steps it was taking. It explained that it had attempted to contact the neighbour to arrange for the lounge to be measured for the carpet but that up until that point the neighbour had failed to respond. It added that it would seek legal advice if the neighbour failed to respond. In response the resident explained that as far as she was aware the landlord was already pursuing legal action.
The landlord stated that it had no evidence that legal action was being pursued and explained that it was not always possible to live next to or near a property without any noise. It explained that the fabric of the building could contribute to noise transfer and added that an injunction and an order for eviction required a lot of evidence, and it would only consider this as a last resort. It suggested that the resident could request a transfer and also suggested laying a carpet with good underlay to help absorb the noise from the neighbour below. In addition it said that once the carpet was fitted in the flat above, the noise complaint would be closed.
Landlord notes showed that the carpet was laid on 22 June 2022 and the case closed. The landlord notified the resident of this on 7 July 2022 and at the same time explained that it was unable to do anymore due to the age of the building.
The resident submitted a formal stage 1 complaint on 26 August 2022.She explained that she had been subjected to noise nuisance from the upstairs neighbour for the previous 5 years. She stated that the noise was impacting on her wellbeing. The resident explained that she had completed ASB diaries, attended mediation and spent months using the noise app that failed to work. The resident added that the noise monitoring equipment that was installed by the landlord was faulty. She stated that she had been informed by the landlord that legal action would be taken against the alleged perpetrators but that this was still outstanding. She explained that she asked for soundproofing in the property but that her request had been denied. The resident added that as a resolution, she wanted better soundproofing, or for the landlord to take action against the alleged perpetrator.
The landlord responded on 1 September 2022 and confirmed all the actions it had taken up until that point. It confirmed that it had attended the property and identified that the noise appeared to be from the tenant below, it added that it had spoken with the neighbour in the property below who explained their circumstances. The landlord added that it had suggested to the resident that she fit carpet in her home to offer additional sound-proofing. The landlord explained that the independent witness did not observe any deliberate or intentional noise on its visits and stated that the noise constituted daily living noise. The landlord confirmed that, as a consequence, it would not be appropriate to take action against the alleged perpetrators of the noise. It apologised for the offence its suggestion regarding requesting a transfer may have caused and explained that it was well-intended. It added that it had spoken with the local authority who had agreed to carry out their own investigations into the noise and advised that the local authority would contact the resident directly.
The resident replied to the landlord on 6 September 2022 maintaining that the length of time that had passed from when she first reported the noise to when the landlord addressed it with the tenants was too long and that the landlord ignored her emails. She added that although carpet had been installed in the flat above it had not made a difference to her quality of life. She maintained that the noise from the flat above continued and that it was deliberate.
On 12 September 2022 the local authority emailed the landlord to explain that it had spoken with the resident and explained that based on the complaints received and the noise involved it was unlikely to be considered a statutory noise nuisance and consequently the issues raised fell within the landlord’s remit.
On 4 December 2022 following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord for confirmation of its stage 1 response. Two days later the landlord contacted the resident to advise that her complaint would be escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process and that she should expect a response with 20 working days.
An internal landlord email confirmed the actions it had taken and that on its visit to the resident’s property it believed the noise to be from the flat below. It added that the resident asked for her flat to be soundproofed, which the landlord advised would not be possible but suggested that she should fit carpet with a good underlay. The landlord added that the floor is concrete and that there are issues with the dividing walls.
The landlord provided a comprehensive stage 2 response on 5 January 2023. In its response it apologised for its failure to provide a complaint reference number at stage 1 and for its failure to provide details on escalating the complaint to stage 2. The landlord set out the actions it had taken to resolve the noise complaint. The landlord apologised for its lack of responses to the resident’s emails in April 2021 and for its delay in responding to emails in June 2021. In relation to the suggestion that it would take legal action against the alleged perpetrators, it explained the circumstances in which legal action may be possible, and apologised to the resident for providing misleading information about the likelihood of legal action which subsequently led to unrealistic expectations. The landlord explained that at the time of using the noise app it was a new service to the landlord and it accepted that it had difficulties extracting and listening to the recordings, for which it apologised.
The landlord explained that it had listened to the recordings but that it considered the noise to be from everyday living rather than deliberate noise. The landlord confirmed that it had also installed its own noise monitoring equipment, but that it had removed the device after having been unplugged by the resident. The landlord set out the findings of the independent witness and the local authority who both concluded that the noise was from daily living and did not seem deliberate. The landlord confirmed that it had arranged for carpet to be installed in the lounge area of the flat above by way of minimising the noise transference.
The landlord partially upheld the complaint and in doing so accepted that there had been delays and failures in its communication with the resident. It apologised for the misinformation in regards the legal action and for the delays and poor service linked to the extraction of data from the noise app. It explained that it accepted that there had been failures but that it was satisfied that it had taken all the appropriate steps in its investigation of the noise complaint and did not agree that, based on its investigations, the noise was excessive or unreasonable.
The landlord recognised that the resident had been inconvenienced and offered £350 as a goodwill gesture. It explained the gesture was made up of £150 for the landlord’s failure to explain to the resident how to escalate the complaint and, £200 for the resident’s time and trouble and inconvenience in relation to poor communication and delayed action.

Post internal complaints process

The resident replied on 12 January 2023 unhappy with the landlord’s response. She explained that she did not feel the amount offered reflected the impact the noise had on her family. She added that she had also experienced issues with a leak that had caused damage and which the landlord had failed to resolve and that the landlord had agreed 5 years earlier that it would renovate her kitchen, but that up until that date it had failed to do so.
The landlord responded the same day and explained that the issue of the leak and the kitchen renovation was not part of the original complaint and consequently had not been investigated. It confirmed that the investigation only concerned the complaint about its handling of the noise reports and explained how the resident could escalate her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s policies and obligations

The landlord’s Tenancy handbook states that it takes reports of ASB, which includes but is not limited to, noise nuisance, very seriously and will take the necessary steps to protect residents. It explains that this may mean that it will work in partnership with other agencies, including environmental health, Council ASB units, and Community groups. The handbook also provides a guide to tenants on how to be a considerate neighbour, it promotes keeping noise to a reasonable level at all times.
The landlord does not have a specific noise nuisance policy but based on reference to noise under an ASB heading in the Tenancy handbook, it is reasonable to assume the landlord’s policies and procedures for reports of ASB would also apply to reports of noise nuisance.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that where there is behaviour that causes nuisance and/or annoyance, it will utilise all the tools available in a prompt and proportionate manner, based on the circumstances of the case. It’s procedure explains that a vulnerability assessment must be completed to ensure the case is categorised correctly. The landlord should contact the resident to get an understanding of the issue and the timescale to do this is dependent on the scoring in the vulnerability assessment.
The policy states that the investigation stage is key to the effective management and resolution of ASB and that staff will take an evidence-led approach to investigating any alleged behaviours to ensure that alleged perpetrators are treated fairly and that complainants can be assured of the reasons for actions being taken. It goes on to state that staff will be mindful of confidentiality at all stages of the process.
It explains that although the investigation will vary depending on the ASB reported and the individuals involved, there are several key activities that will normally form part of an ASB investigation:
1. Interviewing complainants, as agreed at initial contact but where possible within five working days of a first report;
2. Interviewing alleged perpetrators, usually after the complainant;
3. Speaking with any witnesses of the ASB and recording their comments;
4. Considering whether diary sheets are required for ongoing issues; and
5. Reviewing evidence such as photographs or noise monitoring equipment.
With regard timescales for responses to enquiries during the investigation, the procedure explains that the landlord is expected to respond to within a reasonable timescale, which it quotes as being 5 working days and no longer than 10 working days.
The procedure explains that if the alleged perpetrator denies the allegation and there is no evidence to suggest that the incident took place, complainants and alleged perpetrators will be advised that no action will be taken but the situation may be monitored. It adds that if a complainant does not agree to the case being closed the landlord may close the case if there are no reported incidents for a period of 4 or more weeks.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1 it aims to respond to complaints within 5 to10 working days 2 complaints within 20 working days.

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

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified .

The landlord contacted the resident in relation to the noise complaint 3 working days after it was made and completed the vulnerability assessment within 5 working days after the noise nuisance was first reported. The landlord was correct to contact the resident and complete the vulnerability assessment following the noise report. This was an appropriate and reasonable response and in line with the landlord’s procedure.
Following on from this, the landlord provided the resident with ASB diary sheets for completion, and spoke with the alleged perpetrator of the noise within a month of the noise nuisance report. This was an appropriate response within a reasonable timescale.
Approximately 2 months after the initial noise report, the landlord had reviewed the ASB diary sheets and spoke with the alleged perpetrator. The landlord advised the resident that given the time of day that the noise could be heard it would consider the noise as normal household noise. Nevertheless it instructed an independent witness to attend the property to listen for the noise at first hand. In addition, it said that it would arrange for noise monitoring equipment to be installed. This was a satisfactory course of action. The alleged perpetrator of the noise had denied the allegation, but given that the resident had said that the noise was excessive, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate further.
The evidence has shown that the independent witness attended the property initially on 2 occasions, with a space of 2 weeks between each visit. It concluded that it could hear heavy footsteps on what it thought was laminate flooring, and what it believed to be an “autistic child shouting”. It added that it did not think the noise was deliberate and suggested that the landlord could consider soundproofing.
It was reasonable for the landlord to take the steps it did to investigate the noise complaint. Up until this point it acted in a prompt and proportionate manner to establish the cause of the noise.
However, following on from this the landlord should have made it clear to the resident that it would be limited in the action it could take.
In the Spotlight on Noise report, the Ombudsman explains that it is unfair to both the resident making the complaint and the resident being complained about for the noise to be treated as something it is not; and it is harder for the landlord to make consistent and reasonable decisions if it does not have the right framework for all types of noise reports. This approach entrenches disputes and mismanages expectations.
In October 2020 the landlord said that it would arrange for noise monitoring equipment to be installed in the resident’s property and in November 2020 it said that it would continue to monitor the noise, and reiterated its promise to install the noise monitoring equipment. However, it took until June 2021 for the landlord to suggest that the resident use the noise monitoring app and until 27 October 2021 to install noise monitoring equipment. This Service acknowledges that there was a national lockdown in place for some of the period in question, and this would have impacted on the landlord’s ability to install the noise monitoring equipment. Nonetheless, apart from its email to the resident in December 2020 explaining that there would be a delay in installing the noise monitoring equipment, the landlord failed to keep the resident updated on this aspect of the investigation. The landlord’s failure in this regard would have compounded the resident’s frustration and added to her feeling of being ignored.
The landlord advised this Service that the device that had been installed in October 2021 was unplugged consequently rendering any data lost. However, it is not clear to this Service why the landlord had no option but to remove the noise monitoring device from the property in November 2021. While it is understood that data collected up to that point had been lost, it seems rash of the landlord to remove the equipment instead of reinstating it, particularly when the noise complaint had been ongoing for over a year and any data collected on the equipment could have brought a conclusion to the complaint.
In addition, the data the resident collected from the noise app was also rendered useless for approximately 4 months as the landlord did not have the ability to access the data collected. While this Service recognises that the landlord has explained that the noise app was a new tool it was using, it is not acceptable to put a service in place without the appropriate means of using it fully. This was to the detriment of the resident who did not know if, or when, the noise recordings she had collected would be reviewed by the landlord and spent time and trouble contacting the landlord for an update.
It is not clear to this Service why the landlord failed to communicate with the resident between December 2020 and March 2021 or why there was a further pause in communication between the parties between March 2021 and June 2021. However in its spotlight on noise report published in October 2022 the Ombudsman is very clear that there is a need for ongoing, consistent communication, particularly where timescales are set out in the landlord’s policy. By setting an expectation and then failing to deliver, residents are understandably going to raise this as an issue and feel they are not being treated fairly.
It is also unclear why, on 22 June 2021, the landlord suggested it would take legal action against the neighbour when 6 months earlier on 2 December 2020 it stated that it did not have any evidence that the noise was deliberate, and consequently would not be pursuing legal action. In addition the evidence provided on 13 November 2020 by the independent witness, instructed by the landlord, stated that the noise did not appear to be deliberate or malicious and that it was more likely an issue with sound-proofing. As set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise, landlords must effectively manage expectations at an early stage around what the outcome of the noise report would be, landlords must challenge unreasonable expectations and avoid creating unrealistic expectations. This is particularly important when communicating about enforcement action that might or might not be taken. The landlord’s own ASB procedure states that it will act in a proportionate manner based on the circumstances of the case. At the time the landlord had suggested it would take legal action there was no evidence available to it to suggest that the noise was deliberate. Consequently the landlord was acting outside of its own procedure, which clearly states that if the alleged perpetrator denies the allegation and there is no evidence to suggest that the incident took place, complainants and alleged perpetrators will be advised that no action will be taken but the situation may be monitored.
While there is no denying that noise transference was an issue for the resident, at the point the landlord became aware that it was most likely exacerbated by the fabric of the building, it should have taken steps to establish how it could improve the situation for all parties concerned. Evidence showed that the landlord was aware, as early as November 2020, that the neighbour in the flat above the resident had laminate flooring in their lounge. It also showed that the landlord wrote to the neighbour to ask them to install carpet in their lounge. This Service is not aware of the exact conversation between the landlord and the neighbour in respect of the fitting of underlay and carpet. However, it is noted that in January 2022 the landlord agreed to cover the cost of the underlay and carpet in the neighbour’s property, then it took until 22 June 2022 to fit the carpet. This Service understands that the landlord’s communication with the neighbour was not straightforward, it also understands that residents are responsible for their own floor coverings. However, in the spirit of finding a prompt solution to the noise transference issue, and given that the landlord was aware that the noise was made worse by the poor sound insulation in the building, it could have offered to cover the cost of the carpet a lot sooner than it actually did.
On 7 July 2022, almost 2 years after it was first reported, the landlord closed the noise nuisance complaint and advised the resident of this. It explained to the resident that it could not take any further action due to the fabric of the building. However, the landlord has failed to provide any evidence of the investigations it conducted, if at all, into the building’s structure, or whether it investigated any potential cost-effective approach to improving the sound insulation in the building.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord acted promptly in dealing with the initial noise nuisance complaint. However, it appears that after having concluded that the noise transference was in part due to the fabric of the building, its efforts to resolve the issue subsided. We acknowledge that the landlord has accepted that its communication with the resident was lacking and that it either delayed or failed in responding to some of the resident’s emails. We also acknowledge that the landlord has offered the resident £200 as a goodwill gesture to reflect its poor communication and the inconvenience this caused the resident. However, this Service is not satisfied that this goes far enough, as the landlord has failed to actively consider the resident’s request for improved sound insulation. The Ombudsman therefore finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 4 working days. This is reasonable timescale for a response and within the prescribed limits set out in the landlord’s own policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint code. However, in its response the landlord failed to state that the complaint was being considered at stage 1 of its complaints process and also failed to provide the resident with details for escalating the complaint if she wished to do so. This was unacceptable. The complaint code is clear that the landlord must provide details of how to escalate the complaint if the resident remains dissatisfied.
Following contact from this Service on 4 December 2022 regarding the landlord’s failure to provide details of the escalation process in its stage 1 response, the landlord contacted the resident on 6 December 2022 to confirm it would deal with the complaint at stage 2 of its complaint’s process. It responded to the complaint on 5 January 2023, which was 20 working days after it was acknowledged.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was full and comprehensive, and set out the action it took in handling the report of noise nuisance. It addressed its failure to provide details of its escalation process at stage 1 and apologised for this. In addition the landlord offered the resident £150 goodwill payment for its poor complaint handling at stage 1. This was a reasonable response. The Ombudsman therefore finds reasonable redress of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord concluded that the noise was non-statutory and that it was limited in the legal actions it could take to resolve the issue, it failed to demonstrate to the resident that it had fully investigated if there were any improvements it could make to the building to minimise noise transference.
The landlord accepted its failures at stage 1 of its complaint handling process and suitably compensated the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident the £350 it offered in its stage 2 response, if it hasn’t already done so.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to instruct an independent noise specialist, acoustician or surveyor to undertake a specialist investigation of the insulation, including inspecting the floors of the properties above and below and the walls between properties in order to consider whether there are any reasonable further measures it can take to provide noise insulation. It should then provide feedback to the resident as to its actions, together with an explanation.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight on noise report and present its findings to this Service. There is an expectation that the landlord demonstrates to this Service how it complies or intends to comply with the recommendations in the spotlight report.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to review its ASB policy and procedure and ensure it provides clear guidance as to how it distinguishes between noise transference and noise nuisance/ASB and sets out how it will respond to reports of noise nuisance.
The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales prescribed for each one.