Agenda item

1. Replacement of former member for Area 1 be given priority as lack of attendance at local tenant forums was often poor, it was hoped that the Zoom facility might encourage participants who found travel to City Hall difficult.
2. The Board was informed that a meeting was taking place in September about replacement HMB members and would include looking at new technology options for encouraging greater participation at board meetings.
3. Noted that it was important to avoid clashing of dates for meetings, e.g. HMB with local forums.
4. A pilot scheme was underway regarding broadband connection for Sheltered Housing tenants, this was to enable better participation.

Appendix

HOUSING MANAGEMENT BOARD

PUBLIC FORUM

29 JULY 2020

Questions from Ryan Miles

I have points that I would like put to the board, regarding noise nuisance/antisocial behaviour & how certain aspects are investigated & dealt with by the Council.

The Council's own tenancy agreement lists door slamming as an example of antisocial behaviour & yet the noise nuisance team do not deem it serious enough to warrant taking action against the perpetrators. Door slamming can cause major disturbance to tenants at all hours & can have a major detrimental effect on their quality of life & their mental health. How can victims be protected from such disturbance & antisocial behaviour, when the very people responsible for taking action against the perpetrators of it, don't regard it as serious enough? 

How also can victims prove their case, when the app recommended by the Council for recording noise, is not fit for the purposes for which it was designed?

Door slamming according to the noise nuisance team, does not constitute statutory noise nuisance, as per the environmental protection act & therefore rarely if ever results in them taking tenancy action.

Yet it is listed as antisocial behaviour in the tenancy agreement & can therefore be actioned under the antisocial behaviour, crime & policing act, so why doesn't this happen? & why are tenants not properly supported in making it happen?

Noise nuisance such as this, is a major issue on our estates & can have devastating effects on the lives of those on the receiving end. The entire noise nuisance policy & procedure in general, can be a very lengthy & frustrating experience for tenants & I'm sure for Housing Officers too & is in dire need of review.

Council Officers Reply

Poor sound insulation between adjoining properties is a cause of many complaints throughout the country. It may make every day sounds of ordinary living; for example children playing, footsteps across a floor and doors banging, intolerable. It is a particular problem in premises originally constructed as single household dwellings, which have been converted into self- contained flats and in buildings constructed during the 1960s when standards for noise attenuation were not as good as modern day standards.

Following the common law cases of Southwark v Mills, Baxter v Camden LBC and Vella vs LB Lambeth it was found that a lack of sound insulation between premises leading to noise nuisance cannot be remedied under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

These cases found that it is not reasonable to expect neighbours to behave especially quietly because sound insulation between their properties is poor. Therefore normal, everyday noise will not constitute a statutory nuisance.

To meet the threshold for serving a CPW/CPN the officer must be satisfied that the conduct of the individual or body:

·       is having a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality

·       is of a persistent or continuing nature

·       is unreasonable

This test is very similar to statutory nuisance but broken down more. The above factors relating to statutory nuisance would apply in this test in addition to the test if the conduct is “unreasonable behaviour”. In the case of banging doors it is the often the fact that the conduct of the tenant is the moved around the property or coming and going from a property which is not unreasonable. Fire doors and poor sound insulation is the common theme across banging door complaints.

In relation to dealing with complaints of tenant’s door slamming this will form part of the role of Estate Management alongside Noise Pollution to look at the whole picture of the complaints raised during an investigation.

A recent example - Carpentry were sent to a report of noise nuisance from door slamming, they looked at the door and adjusted it but it was the family's life style which was the issue. This was included in an injunction but only formed part of a much bigger picture of the Investigations especially when domestic concerns form part of the nuisance behaviour linked to the tenancy agreement which isn’t deemed solely as ASB.

Meeting ended at 8 pm