Noise Complaints: 3 key themes from the Ombudsman’s report

Noise Complaints: Getting to grips with the Housing Ombudsman’s recommendations

Joseph Warren • February 6, 2023

Time to be heard. That’s the subtitle of the Housing Ombudsman Service’s latest report, Spotlight on: Noise Complaints. A detailed 58-page report with 32 recommendations ranging from changing policies to building community relations and working with other agencies.

But since the report was published in late October 2022, it’s been a busy few months for social housing providers.

Much focus has been on damp and mould issues, particularly with the Regulator of Social Housing’s call for evidence following the inquest into the death of Awaab Ishak. So it’s understandable if noise nuisance hasn’t been top of your priority list.

But it’s important not to lose sight of noise issues. Particularly as the second largest category of complaint received by the Ombudsman between 2019 and 2021 was the response to reports about tenant behaviour — leading to a maladministration rate of 43%,

So in this article, we’re going to look at three of the main themes from the report and how some of the recommendations tie into other aspects of good housing management.

1. Getting the framework right

We start with what the Housing Ombudsman sees at the heart of its findings: “a fundamental unfairness”.

Three-quarters of all noise reports are about ordinary household noise: movement, intermittent music, and everyday living. They’re not about anti-social behaviour. So why do over three-quarters of landlords (76%) respond to reports by using their ASB policy?

The Ombudsman says this approach is unfair – not only to the resident making the complaint but also to the resident who the complaint is about.

It can lead to “a kind of purgatory” for the complainant. Completing countless diary sheets. Making sound recordings. Trying to prove their neighbour has been antisocial when the reality is, in most cases, the statutory threshold won’t be reached.

A more holistic approach is needed. One that distinguishes between what might be genuine ASB and what might just be household noise accentuated by the age and type of the building.

To help both landlords and residents, the Ombudsman wants to see the Decent Homes standard revised to reflect the realities of modern living.

2. Prevention is better than cure

What does noise cost?

According to the report, noise leads to both human and financial costs. “It costs individuals their mental health and well-being and it costs landlords in protracted and often futile interventions, multi-agency liaison and staff morale.”

For the Ombudsman, these costs are underestimated. But also, to some extent, avoidable.

Around 13 of the recommendations in the report are aimed at preventing possible causes of noise. These include updating the void standard to ensure:

Carpets aren’t removed unless they’re in a poor state of repair

Properties have adequate insulation from transference noise

And anti-vibration mats are fitted into the washing machine space as standard.

3. Handling a noise report

Preventative measures won’t resolve all issues. So how should you handle matters once they escalate to a noise report?

The report makes recommendations on matters such as:

Equipment

Working with other agencies

And record keeping (which is the subject of the next Spotlight report).

There are three key areas of focus, however. All three concern effective communication.

Triage

The Ombudsman says poor communication is frequently the reason for their maladministration findings. One way to strengthen communication is through triaging reports to make sure you apply the correct approach.

Routinely using an ASB policy to handle noise reports may be one of the reasons why the uptake of mediation is poor. Managing a noise report under the label of ASB may also unduly raise expectations as to likely outcomes.

Instead, having two clear policies – one for good neighbourhood management and one for issues that meet the ASB threshold – gives residents clarity early on in the process and helps to manage their expectations.

Respect

One of the Ombudsman’s central concerns is the degree of respect given to residents’ complaints. “Where the resident is not afforded respect, neither are their concerns.”

The service didn’t find any evidence of actual bias in the cases it investigated. But there were instances of a perception of bias.

It heard from residents who felt their motives for raising a noise report were being questioned by their landlord. This was often in cases where the resident had complained before. Or where the resident was elderly and they were making a complaint about neighbours with young children.

Housing associations should make sure the tone of communication doesn’t result in perceptions of bias and that it isn’t dismissive of residents’ concerns.

They should also start preparing for the Access to Information Scheme. Because when that scheme is up and running, residents will be able to access your internal communications.

Timeliness and communication

In nearly all cases investigated by the Ombudsman, residents were frustrated by a lack of communication and delay. In particular, this happened when the landlord had been quick to communicate at the start of the process but then seemed to stop responding or providing updates.

Residents weren’t notified that there would be a delay and there was a glaring absence of proactive ‘holding letters’.

So, even where you’re unable to anticipate a delay, once you’re aware you won’t be able to meet the timescales you’ve given a resident, tell them as soon as possible and give them a revised date.

Not losing sight of noise

As the Housing Ombudsman himself acknowledged in a recent podcast, social housing landlords are facing a number of real challenges. But it's important not to forget about noise nuisance. The fact that the Ombudsman’s maladministration rate on non-statutory noise complaints is 62% underlines this.

It’s unlikely you’ll be able to act on all of the Spotlight report’s recommendations immediately. And you might find that, for the circumstances of your organisation, some ideas and suggestions are more practicable than others.

But by starting to think about noise nuisance in a more holistic way, there’s an opportunity to make long-term savings, strengthen community bonds, and reduce the risk of maladministration findings.

If you would like some advice on handling a noise report or need a hand with writing a good neighbourhood management policy, we’re here to help.

< Older Post Newer Post >

What the Crime and Policing Bill has in store

February 26, 2025

What the Crime and Policing Bill has in store for ASB and Housing Providers

Are you prepared for Awaab's law

January 23, 2025

Are you prepared for Awaab's law?

Pitch fee increases and exceptionally high RPI/CPI

By Joseph Warren • October 21, 2024

Is an exceptional level of RPI good reason to depart from an increase in pitch fees at that level? – Mobile Homes Act 1983

Positive Requirements in ASB injunctions

By Daryl Bigwood • October 14, 2024

Cobb Warren were recently successful in an appeal against the decision of a District Judge to refuse an application to include a positive requirement in an injunction pursuant to Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 ("the 2014 Act"). This took place in October in front of a Circuit Judge in the County Court at Bristol. Our client sought to include a provision requiring the respondent to engage with support services to help address the underlying causes of the anti-social behaviour the respondent engaged in. The District Judge at first instance refused the application on the basis that such an order would amount to an order of mandamus (orders of mandamus have, since 2004, been known as ‘mandatory orders’ - they are specific to public law matters) and therefore, pursuant to section 38 of the County Courts Act 1984. The District Judge said that the County Court lacked jurisdiction to make such an order. The appeal was argued on two points: 1. The order was not an order of mandamus (or mandatory order) as such orders are remedies in public law proceedings only and not private law proceedings; or 2. In any event, even if it were, the 2014 Act creates a separate statutory scheme which enables the County Court to include any positive requirements in an injunction in order to prevent the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour. The Circuit Judge hearing the appeal allowed the appeal on both grounds. In respects of the second ground, we advanced an argument that the decision in Swindon Borough Council v Abrook [2024] EWCA Civ 221 supported the ground as: 1. The Court of Appeal determined that the Court’s usual case management powers to vary or set aside an order of its own volition did not apply to injunctions under the 2014 Act. This was therefore indicative of the 2014 Act creating its own statutory scheme. 2. The Court of Appeal was considering an appeal from the decision of a District Judge in the County Court and determined, at paragraph 109 of that earlier judgment that a Court should consider making positive requirements. Therefore, the Court of Appeal seemingly accepted that positive requirements were available in the County Court. Overall, we achieved a good outcome for our client and obtained clarity as to the use of positive requirements. Such requirements can often be more effective in addressing anti-social behaviour, by addressing the causes of the behaviour, rather than simply prohibiting the behaviour itself. A review of the Court's powers in relation to Anti-Social Behaviour by the Civil Justice Council in 2020 emphasised the importance of including positive requirements in injunctions. One of its recommendation was to increase their use as a way of addressing underlying issue causing Anti-Social Behaviour. If you need to discuss the above case or require any guidance please get in touch with us.