Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Barnet Council (201901321)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201901321

Barnet Homes

28 January 2021


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 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair at the property.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the neighbouring properties.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (“the Scheme”). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Under paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  3. The property is managed by a managing agent behalf of the landlord. For simplicity, references to the landlord in this report include the managing agent acting on its behalf.
  4. On 13 June 2019, the resident’s legal representatives sent a Letter before Action to the landlord in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Disrepair. The letter outlined disrepair at the property including that:
  • The hallway ceiling plasterboards were damaged and chipped and the ceiling was “so weak” that the resident could hear the footsteps of his neighbour above. 
  • There was no flooring/carpeting in the hallway or bedroom.
  • The kitchen ceiling was damaged due to continuous mould and the ceiling was on the verge of collapsing, and there was deterioration of cupboards in the kitchen due to mould/damp around the window.
  • The bedroom was damaged due to mould.
  1. A surveyor was instructed to inspect the property as a single joint expert on 16 July 2019. The surveyor concluded that some repairs were required to the property such as to the hall ceilings and replacing damp plaster in the utility room. In relation to the noise issue, the surveyor reported that remedial work to address this would include installing carpet to the upstairs flat and installing sound insulation to the upper floor void, but these constituted improvements. They also noted that the emptiness of the property was another factor and it could be mitigated by having carpet and furniture (although acknowledged this would not eradicate the problem).
  2. On 11 August 2019, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it had engaged its legal team and its normal disrepair process would be followed, and therefore it did not consider it appropriate to put the matter through its complaints process.
  3. Following further communications from the charity and this service in relation to the resident’s concerns about repairs and the noise issues, on 18 May 2020, the landlord issued a complaint response stating that the case was being dealt with between solicitors so all communication should be through the resident’s solicitor including any complaints.
  4. The landlord also provided a brief response in relation to the repairs stating that there were various repair issues internally and externally and the external works could not be completed until the resident had been decanted. The landlord said it had sourced a studio flat which would allow the resident to self-isolate in a safe and suitable property, however, he refused this property due to the location. The landlord acknowledged that adaptions were required but that the property could not be adapted due to health and safety and building regulations, therefore a different property needed to be sourced. The landlord concluded that the complaint could not be progressed through its complaints process as it was a legal disrepair matter.
  5. While the landlord provided a summary of the status of the repair issues in this letter, the landlord did not fully investigate the resident’s complaint about repairs required to the property or provide a full complaint response in relation to this. It concluded that the issues should be dealt with through the legal process and said it could not escalate the issues further through its complaints process. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that this aspect of the complaint has not exhausted (completed) the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  6. On 12 March 2020, the resident’s legal representatives informed the landlord’s legal representative it expected to receive further instructions from the resident in relation to his claim by 16 March 2020. The landlord’s legal representative chased a response on 25 March 2020, 9 April 2020 and 14 May 2020. On 28 May 2020, the landlord’s legal representative informed the resident’s legal representatives that it had closed the disrepair case as it had not heard from them and assumed they were no longer instructed by the resident.
  7. The landlord’s Complaints policy states if the issue is not a complaint within the definition of the policy, it will deal with it through the relevant alternative procedure. This includes issues where the resident has commenced legal action. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to refuse to respond to a complaint about the same repair issues while the legal pre-action correspondence about the disrepair claim was ongoing, that was between 13 June 2019 and 28 May 2020.
  8. In view of the above, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs required to the property. This is because this complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and there is no evidence of a complaint handling failure in respect of this complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is the tenant of the landlord. He was granted an introductory tenancy in December 2018 for one year following which it would automatically become a five-year flexible secure tenancy.
  2.  The resident lives on the ground floor flat of a semi-detached maisonette (“the property”).
  3. The landlord’s records confirm that it was aware at the start of the tenancy that the resident had mental health issues.

Tenancy Agreement, Policy and Procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will maintain the structure and outside of the property, including the internal structure and roof.
  2. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy and procedure (“ASB policy”) states that the term antisocial behaviour (ASB) includes ‘nuisance’, and states the following:
  • On the initial report of ASB, the landlord should complete an initial ASB report and a vulnerability assessment matrix which will provide an initial assessment of the complainant’s vulnerability and whether it is a repeat incident. At this stage, any criteria with a trigger response, such as mental health issues, will result in a high-risk assessment with a response required within 24 hours or immediately if the incidents are on-going.
  • The initial risk assessment determines the appropriate procedure to follow depending on the category of ASB which include public nuisance, environmental and personal threat. The low risk category includes isolated incidents which are not specifically targeted, the victim is not vulnerable, and the impact is low, such as people walking across wooden floors whilst wearing shoes and noise when children come home from school. The landlord does not investigate such incidents and will provide advice and close the case.
  • For medium risk category, this would normally be ASB not targeted against an individual but the impact is causing nuisance and annoyance such as a group or individual causing annoyance/inconvenience, and the ASB would need to be persistent (five or more incidents in the last two months). After the initial contact and risk assessment, the landlord will contact the complainant within ten days for interview and to complete the full ASB behaviour report and a full risk assessment matrix.  The landlord will look across the range of interventions available including early prevention to stop the ASB and provide reassurance such as physical interventions.
  • For noise nuisance and amplified noise cases, the early intervention can include advice; warning letters; mediation; and acceptable behavior contracts.
  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not make reference to a requirement for it to soundproof its properties. The policy states that tenants’ responsibilities include carpets, decoration and fixtures and fittings such as curtains.

Summary of Events

  1. On 18 January 2019, the landlord completed a new tenancy visit at the property. The resident raised various issues including that he had no furniture and the landlord advised him that he would be referred to the landlord’s floating team for support. The resident also reported that there was noise from the neighbour’s children in the flat above. The landlord advised that the noise would reduce once the property was furnished, and that this type of noise could not be investigated as it was household noise, but he could report it to the out of hours noise team.
  2. On 22 February 2019, a charity contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf about repairs issues including noise from the neighbours above which the resident said was caused by lack of insulation between the two flats. They also stated that due to his health conditions (PTSD and OCD), the excessive noise was of “far greater detriment to himself than it would be to most people”. 
  3. On 3 April 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to say that he was very distressed due to the noise issues in the property, which were affecting his mental health. He also requested his bathroom and toilet be combined due to his mental health issues. On 8 April 2019, the landlord attended the property and the resident reported various issues including noise from the neighbour’s children.
  4. In correspondence to the resident’s MP, the landlord repeated its position that this type of noise could not be investigated as it was household noise, however he could report it to the out of hours noise team. The landlord advised the MP that a support worker had helped the resident obtain a grant of £800 to furnish the property but the resident had not engaged with the support worker. The landlord also advised that it had spoken to the neighbour above.
  5. On 30 April 2019, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He said that his complaint was about noise nuisance and he believed that the walls between the property and the neighbour’s properties were thin causing noise transference.
  6. On 21 May 2019, the landlord visited the resident to discuss the issues that he was having in the property including the noise from the neighbour above however the landlord’s records do not detail what was discussed. 
  7. On 24 May 2019, a medical professional wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf referring to his health concerns and stating that there was damage to the property and issues with noise. They referred specifically to damp and poor noise insulation and the effect of this on the resident’s health. Another letter from a medical professional dated 22 May 2019 refers to the noise issue and notes that the noise from neighbours was triggering the resident’s past traumatic experiences. It is unclear if this letter was sent to the landlord at this time.
  8. On 16 July 2019, a surveyor attended for the purpose of the disrepair claim. In the report, the surveyor advised that they did not hear any noise from the neighbour above, but it was possible that no one was there at the time of the inspection. The surveyor suspected that the flooring type was one reason the resident could hear footsteps, and another cause could be a lack of sound insulation, but they did not know if it was installed when the property was converted.
  9. The surveyor said that remedial works to address the problem of unwanted sound transmission would be installing carpets to the upstairs property and sound insulation to the upper floor void, but both would constitute improvements. The surveyor noted that the property was bare and therefore there was nothing to absorb the sound, which could be mitigated by carpets and furniture (although this would not completely eradicate the problem). The surveyor further said that if the noise was day–to–day living then it would be a neighbourly matter between the two residents and they could not be definitive as to whether the noise was being amplified by disrepair.
  10. On 31 July 2019, the resident contacted this service advising that the noise nuisance was ongoing and he was not satisfied with the landlord’s handling of the concern. 
  11. On 8 August 2019, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord requesting it confirm the status of the resident’s complaint. The landlord advised the Ombudsman that it had received a disrepair claim, so it had been passed to the legal team and it was therefore not appropriate to also put the issue through the complaints process.
  12. The landlord’s contact records refer to carpet fitters attending the property on 8 August 2019 but noted that the tenant did not provide access and declined support from the support worker. The resident complained of hearing noise from the neighbour above. The landlord advised the resident that the property was empty and if it was furnished according to his care and support plan then it would reduce the noise from the neighbour above. The landlord’s notes state that the resident declined “all offers to help him”.
  13. On 3 September 2019, the charity contacted the landlord again asserting the property was not suitable and requested insulation work be completed to make it suitable or make arrange alternative arrangements. The letter referred to the lack of insulation in the walls and ceilings and that he could hear almost every noise from the neighbours both above and next door, including closing doors and walking. The letter also said that the effect of hearing the noises was “greatly heightened” compared to an average person because of his vulnerability and his mental health had “severely deteriorated”.
  14. On 25 October 2019, the landlord provided a Stage one complaint response, stating, in summary:
  • The landlord apologised for the delay in responding.
  • In relation to the suitability issue, it explained that the resident did not request a right of review within 56 days of the offer, therefore this option had expired. However, as a tenant he was now able to apply for a transfer.
  • It does not install sound proofing in its properties and the noise from the neighbours was household noise.
  • It had visited the property with carpet and curtain fitters to measure but the resident refused this until the repairs he felt necessary were carried out. The resident subsequently did not engage with its support services. The landlord had taken steps to try and help the resident’s wellbeing by offering furnishings, carpet, curtains and input from support services but without the resident’s engagement it could not move forward.
  • The case was being dealt with as a legal disrepair case and the repairs team were in contact with the resident’s legal representatives, and an independent expert had carried out a survey at the property. It would carry out a pre-inspection before any works were completed.
  • The complaint response concluded that the resident could request to escalate the complaint by contacting its complaints team if he was not satisfied with the response.
  1. On 26 November 2019, the resident emailed the landlord stating that he was not happy with the complaint response because its support services could not help him and the noise nuisance complaint was the main issue. He said that his neighbour’s floorboards were “all damage and squeaky and really bad”. The landlord responded the following day querying whether the resident was unhappy with the response for the complaint logged in September 2019. On 28 November 2019, the resident replied confirming that he was not happy with the response and that his previous email (of 26 November 2019) was sent as a second stage complaint.
  2. In December 2019, the landlord identified that the roof to the building containing the property required urgent repair to make it safe as there had been movement to the roof and it was at risk of collapse.
  3. On 23 January 2020, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord saying the resident was having difficulty escalating his complaints about noise reports and disrepair. This service advised that the resident had said he did not have an ongoing disrepair case and that he had requested to escalate his complaint on 28 November 2019. On 27 January 2020, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that it was still an active disrepair case and it had not been informed that the resident was no longer represented, therefore it had not put his concerns about disrepair through the internal complaints procedure.
  4. On 5 February 2020, an Occupational Therapist (OT) completed an assessment. The report concluded that the property needed repairs and maintenance throughout due to mould, insufficient heating and poor sound proofing. In addition, access and use of the WC and shower facilities were difficult due to their location, sloping of ceilings and heights of doors. The report recommended a joint feasibility visit with the repairs surveyor to assess and agree how to improve access to the WC and bathroom, whether gravity waste could be achieved in the shower and to soundproof the property.
  5. On 5 March 2020, the Ombudsman again asked the landlord how it was handling the two complaints. The landlord responded on 9 March 2020 advising that it was not aware that the resident was not legally represented. The landlord said an OT had attended but it may not be possible to move the wet room therefore the resident may need to move. The landlord also confirmed that the roof needed to be replaced so the resident would need to be decanted to complete these works. 
  6. On 13 March 2020, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord stating that the complaint concerned two matters: the noise nuisance and the handling of repairs. The Ombudsman referred to the complaint response of 25 October 2019 and the resident’s escalation request of 26 November 2019. On 17 March 2020, the landlord responded that the resident had not yet exhausted its complaints process and therefore the complaint had been escalated to stage two.
  7. On 23 March 2020, this service contacted the landlord again. The correspondence repeated that the resident had requested escalation on 27 November 2019 and requested the landlord provide an update in relation to complaint by 31 March 2020. In its response on the same date, the landlord advised that as it was an active disrepair case, it could not process the complaint further through its complaints process and the resident should be making enquiries through his legal representatives. The landlord confirmed that it would be sourcing the resident a new property as part of a technical decant while roof works take place but due to the pandemic, it could not say when this would be.
  8. On 24 March 2020, the landlord offered to place the resident in emergency temporary accommodation so that he could “stay safe during the lockdown and have access to cooking facilities etc….”.
  9. The landlord’s records show that the resident continued to inform the landlord, either directly or through his support worker, between 23 March 2020 and 8 May 2020 that the noise nuisance was affecting him.
  10. On 4 May 2020, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord requesting it provide a final complaint response to the resident within 14 days. This letter referred to his reports of noise nuisance and repair issues.
  11. On 18 May 2020, the landlord issued a Stage one complaint response to the resident, stating, in summary:
  • The case was being dealt with between solicitors so all communication should be through the resident’s solicitor and him including any complaints. It explained that as it was a legal disrepair claim, much of the information was bound by legal disclosure which was the reason it was reluctant to progress it through its complaint process and for the response not being detailed. 
  • It confirmed that there were various issues internally and externally that needed to be completed to the building and the external works could not be completed until the resident had been temporarily decanted. He had refused a studio flat which would have allowed him to self-isolate stating that it was not in the area he wanted. The adaptions he required could not be completed due to health and safety and building regulations so a different  property would need to be found.
  • The landlord had not witnessed excessive noise at any of its inspections. The property was also completely unfurnished and all sounds from the neighbour above would be amplified within the property. It was unable to soundproof the property as it did not carry this out as part of its repair service. The landlord said that the resident had been advised by the landlord that until the property had flooring and furniture, it was “very difficult” to assess any noise complaint.
  • This matter could not be progressed further through the landlord’s complaints procedure as it was a legal disrepair case and it did not deal with legal matters through its complaints procedure.
  1. In June 2020, the resident reported a leak affecting the property. At this time the landlord was agreeing contracts for the work and the decants had not yet been arranged. As at August 2020, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it was waiting for a decant to be completed for both flats at the property, as a roof replacement was required.
  2. The resident has provided videos to the Ombudsman showing a leak into the kitchen in the property and banging noises which may emanate from the flat above. In December 2020, the resident advised the Ombudsman that the landlord had made a further offer of a property but he had not viewed it. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that he would like the landlord to install soundproofing and work with the neighbours. He referred to noise from pipes and the upstairs neighbour’s flooring.

 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the neighbouring properties

  1. The resident initially reported hearing noises from the neighbouring properties shortly after he moved in which he reported to be an ongoing issue that occurred on a daily basis. It is evident that the noise caused him considerable distress.
  2. There is evidence that the resident first reported noise nuisance (from the neighbour’s children) to the landlord on 18 January 2019 during a new tenancy visit. The landlord responded that it was household noise therefore could not be investigated, but he could report it to the out of hours team.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy states that isolated incidents which are not specifically targeted and the victim is not vulnerable and the impact is low, for example, noise when children come home from school, are considered low risk and it will not investigate these incidents. However, the policy also states that following a first report, it will assess the risk to the victim and certain risk factors for victims are always high, for example, mental health issues. There should be an assessment of the complainant’s vulnerability.
  4. While the noise reported generally falls into the low risk category as defined in the landlord’s policy, there is no evidence of the landlord considering the resident’s vulnerability or completing a risk assessment which would have identified his mental health issues. Overall, the landlord advice at this stage was reasonable given it was a first report and the noise appeared to be general living noise, but it is noted that the landlord should still have followed the process in its ASB policy given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  5. On 22 February 2019, the landlord was informed by the charity supporting the resident that the excessive noise was having a greater effect on the resident than it would to most people due to his health conditions of PTSD and OCD. They also stated that the resident believed the issue was caused by a lack of insulation. On 3 April 2019, the resident also made the landlord aware that the noise was having a serious impact on his mental health. In response, the landlord attended the property (on 8 April 2019), which was appropriate to investigate the issue. The landlord maintained its position that the noise was household noise therefore could not be investigated.
  6. The landlord’s advice was reasonable in the situation where there were no allegations of the neighbours behaving unreasonably or during unsocial hours. The landlord also advised the resident that he could report the noise to its out of hours team. It is assumed the landlord was referring to the Council’s Environmental Health (EH) team who can investigate reports of noise nuisance. This advice was appropriate since the Council’s EH team can investigate reports of noise from neighbours (although it also noted that if the noise was due to normal household noise and/or poor insulation, the EH team would not normally be able to take any action).
  7. The landlord has also stated that it spoke to the resident’s neighbour about this issue, which was also appropriate to try and establish if the neighbours’ actions were the cause of or contributing to the issue.
  8. Given the resident’s significant vulnerabilities and the effect the issue was having on the resident’s mental health, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider what other advice or assistance it could offer at this stage. The landlord did so by engaging with support services for the resident and the landlord’s records evidence that the resident agreed to a support plan including using a funding grant to furnish the property. Given the landlord’s opinion that installing carpets and other furnishings in the property might reduce the noise, this was a reasonable proposal and took into account the resident’s vulnerabilities. It was unfortunate that the resident subsequently did not engage with the support services and the carpet was not fitted.
  9. When responding to this complaint on 25 October 2019, the landlord explained that it does not install sound proofing and that the noise was household noise. The landlord referred to the resident not having engaged with the support services or accepting the carpet and other furnishings. In its final complaint response, the landlord said it had not witnessed excessive noise and sounds were amplified due to the property being unfurnished. The landlord said that until the property had been furnished, it was difficult to assess any noise complaint.
  10. The landlord’s response that it was difficult to assess the noise without any furnishings in the property was reasonable. In their report, the surveyor said that the property was bare so there was nothing to absorb the sound which could be mitigated by carpets and furniture being in place (although this would not eradicate the problem). It is therefore unfortunate that the resident decided not to engage with the support being offered since if he had, this would have assisted the landlord to assess how far this reduced the noise issue and what, if any, further action was appropriate.
  11. There may have been further steps the landlord could have considered, for example, the surveyor’s suggestion of installing carpet in the property above or investigating the condition of the floors in that property (although it is noted that it is not clear form the evidence available whether the landlord owns the property above which would determine the landlord’s role in this). However, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to allow the property to be furnished as a first step, to enable it to determine the extent of any further action required.
  12. In relation to the resident’s request for the landlord to soundproof the property, it is acknowledged that its responsibility under the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy to repair the structure would not normally require it to carry out sound proofing, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to explain this. The surveyor in her report also noted that installing sound insultation would be considered an improvement.
  13. However, it is also noted that the OT’s report of 5 February 2020 had recommended a joint feasibility visit with the repairs surveyor to assess and agree how to improve access to the wc and bathroom, whether gravity waste could be achieved in the shower and to soundproof the property. It is of concern that there is no evidence of the landlord taking into account this recommendation when responding to the complaint.
  14. It is acknowledged that this issue was just one part of a complex situation and by the time of the final complaint response of 18 May 2020 the landlord had identified that the resident needed to be decanted for roof repairs to take place, and possibly permanently due to an adaptation required (also identified by the OT). It was reasonable for the landlord to focus on arranging the decant in these circumstances particularly given the urgency of the roof works. However, the landlord should also have addressed the OT’s reference to soundproofing when responding in relation to this issue.
  15. The resident also alleged that the noise issue was caused by repairs required to the property, but any repairs required to the property were part of the legal case which was not part of this investigation (paragraphs 2 to 13 above).
  16. In conclusion, there were some areas where the landlord’s handling of the reports of noise and its complaint response in relation to this could have been improved, but overall it acted reasonably and there is no evidence of a significant delay or shortcoming in its response. The Ombudsman has made some relevant Recommendations to address the outstanding issues and the OT recommendations referred to above.

 

 

 

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states the following:
  • If the issue is not a complaint under the complaints policy it will be dealt with through an alternative procedure. This includes issues where a resident has commenced legal action.
  • The landlord has a two stage complaints process. The stage one complaint will be responded to within ten working days but if more time is required for investigation then the resident would be informed with the reason and how long it will take up to a maximum of 20 working days from receipt of the complaint.
  • If a resident is not satisfied with the stage one response, the landlord will not unreasonably deny a request for a complaint to be reviewed at stage two but an escalation would not be warranted if legal action is being taken against the landlord. The stage two complaint will be responded to within ten working days but if more time is required to investigate then it will advise the reason for this and how long it will take up to a maximum of 20 working days from receipt of the complaint.
  1. The Ombudsman enquired about the status of the resident’s complaint on 8 August 2019. At this stage the landlord said that it was not raising a complaint due to the open disrepair claim. This was reasonable and in accordance with its complaints policy. On 3 September 2019, the charity raised concerns about the suitability and insulation to the property and the landlord treated this as a complaint and responded on 25 October 2019. This response was several weeks outside of the timescale detailed in its complaints policy of ten working days although it is noted that it did acknowledge and apologise for the delay when responding to the complaint, which was appropriate.
  2. The complaint response of 25 October 2019 set out that the resident could request to escalate the complaint by contacting its complaints team if he was not satisfied with the response. The resident requested escalation of the complaint on 26 November 2019, but the landlord did not escalate the complaint or respond further in accordance with its complaint policy.
  3. It is acknowledged that the landlord had previously confirmed that it would not respond to a complaint which was already being considered as part of a disrepair claim and that there may have been some overlap between the complaint about noise and the disrepair claim. However, given that the landlord provided a Stage one complaint response about this particular issue and advised how the resident could escalate the complaint, the landlord should have responded further to either escalate the complaint or explain to the resident why it could not.
  4. Between 23 January 2020 and 4 May 2020, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord several times about the complaint. The landlord maintained that it would not respond through its complaints procedure due to the disrepair claim. This was reasonable in relation to the complaint about repairs and in accordance with its complaints policy while the disrepair case was active (paragraph 64 above).
  5. However, it was also reasonable for the resident to consider the noise nuisance complaint as separate to this and while there may have been some overlap, the landlord had already provided a Stage one complaint response in relation to this issue. This led both the resident and the Ombudsman to understand that the landlord was responding to this aspect of the complaint. The Ombudsman also referred specifically to the resident’s escalation request of 26 November 2019, but the landlord did not address this. Its final response of 18 May 2020 was stated to be a stage one response which was confusing for the resident.
  6. It is acknowledged that this was a complex complaint and it was difficult for the landlord to know exactly which issues would proceed with the disrepair claim. However, the landlord should have been clearer in relation to the complaint about noise and how it was handling this. The landlord did not handle this complaint in accordance with the procedure set out in its complaints policy and this led to both the resident and the Ombudsman chasing up responses. This landlord provided conflicting information to the resident as to whether the complaint could be escalated and the landlord should have been clearer in its communication with the resident about how it was handling each aspect of the complaint and why.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord with respect to complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the neighbouring properties.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s complaint of noise nuisance by explaining that it was day–to–day noise, offering support to the resident and by sourcing financial funding for the property to be furnished to reduce the noise. The landlord’s advice in relation to the noise and the request for sound proofing was appropriate. However, the landlord should also have addressed the OT’s recommendation in relation to sound proofing and the Ombudsman has made various Recommendations to address this and other outstanding issues.

The landlord’s complaint handling was confusing. While it was reasonable and accordance with its complaints policy not to provide a complaint response in relation to the disrepair aspects of the complaint due to the legal claim while this was active, the resident considered the noise nuisance a separate matter and the landlord also provided a Stage one complaint response in relation to this. Once it had done so, it should have responded to the resident’s request to escalate the complaint by escalating it or explaining why it would not do so. The landlord failed to do so. This led to extensive correspondence with the Ombudsman and confusion as to the status of the complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the formal complaint (within four weeks of the date of this Order).
  2. The landlord to remind its complaints staff of the importance of handling complaints in line with the procedures set out in its complaint policy and providing clarity to residents as to the status of a complaint where part or all of a complaint is being considered under a legal claim (within 6 weeks of the date of this Order).

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to:

a.     Remind its staff handling reports of ASB of the importance of following the ASB policy, particularly completing the initial risk assessment and taking account of any relevant vulnerabilities.

b.     The landlord to contact the resident and/or his support worker in relation to the current status of the decant and provide an update in relation to this, if it has not done so recently.

c.      Give the resident an opportunity to report any current or new issues, such as the leak and banging noises of which he sent evidence to this service, and respond in accordance with its relevant policies.

d.     If the resident does return to the property after the decant and still reports noise issues, the landlord should revisit the OT’s advice at this stage.

e.     If the urgent safety works required to the roof have not yet been undertaken, the landlord to seek legal advice in relation to this and take immediate steps to make the roof safe.

The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.