Soha Housing Limited (202005163)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005163

Soha Housing Limited

18 May 2022

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of soundproofing works to the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Background

During the period covered by this report, the resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 17 July 2017. The resident now resides in another property.
The resident has advised that he has autism and applied for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) from the Council due to noise disturbance from his neighbour which, due to his sensory issues, had caused him to have ‘‘meltdown after meltdown’’ and to harm himself because of the noise.
Whilst it is noted that the resident’s wish to move was acknowledged in the landlord’s final response, this matter did not form part of the complaint considered by the landlord and therefore has not been considered as part of this investigation. The resident’s complaint about another landlord’s refusal to remove age restrictions on a property so that he could bid for it had also not been considered for the same reason.
It has also been noted that the resident has logged separate complaints with the Council regarding the DFG, his eligibility to bid for properties and a second bedroom entitlement, and his Council tax. As these are matters for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) they too have not been considered in this investigation.

Summary of events

On 12 June 2019, the landlord received a referral for soundproofing works at the resident’s property.
On 9 July 2019, the landlord’s Disabled Adaptations Technical Officer visited the resident’s property to assess the work required.
On 4 September 2019, the soundproofing work and DFG was approved by the Council.
On 6 September 2019, the local authority Occupational Therapist (OT) wrote to the resident to advise that they had been advised by the landlord of a start date of 16 September 2019 for the installation of the soundproofing.
On 16 September 2019, the resident emailed the landlord and the OT to say that the installers had arrived that day but the materials they were using were not usually used for soundproofing walls and suggested another system which he said was the more effective way to stop the sort of noise he was experiencing. The resident also said that the original quote was for the radiator and plug sockets to be moved but when the worked started that was not the case. The resident asked if he could get his own quotes for the soundproofing.
The OT replied the same day, having they said been contacted by the landlord regarding the resident’s concerns. The OT said that the contractor had suggested an alternative method of installation, that they had asked the landlord to also consider the suggestion made by the resident and that they would update the resident as soon as they had a response.
On 30 September 2019, the OT emailed the resident saying they had chased landlord again that morning for the revised quote and had asked the landlord to allocate the works to another contractor if it had not received the quote by the following day. The OT also noted that the landlord had advised that going to another contractor would likely result in the works taking longer and that it would still need to get the alternative quote agreed by the Council.
On 2 October 2019, the OT wrote to resident to advise that a revised quote had been received and approved by the DFG funding manager and that the landlord would be in contact to arrange a date for works to proceed, noting that the effectiveness of the soundproofing system the resident had chosen could not be guaranteed.
On 4 October 2019, the resident emailed the OT and the landlord to advise that he was going to get his own quotes before any work was started and that he was not satisfied with the disclaimer that had been provided with regards to the effectiveness of the soundproofing. The OT responded to the resident the same day to say that they would advise the landlord to put the DFG works on hold until the resident had provided an update.
On 29 January 2020, the landlord raised a job for the resident’s nominated specialist soundproofing contractor to carry out the works.
On 9 March 2020, the landlord’s records note that the work commenced however suspected asbestos was identified in the floor covering and ceiling by the operatives and so the work was halted whilst a safe fixing method for the soundproofing was agreed. In a later internal email, of 24 May 2021, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to provide the soundproofing installer with a copy of the asbestos report for the property prior to the works commencing.
On 18 March 2020, the soundproofing installer reattended and advised the landlord that the resident would not let its operatives into his property and that the Police had been called as the resident had been threatening and had advised its operatives to pull off site. It is noted that the resident said the reason he would not allow them entry was because the installers had turned up unannounced and he had become fed up with them turning up when it suited them.
On 23 March 2020, the Government imposed a national lockdown due to Covid 19.
On 22 April 2020, the resident emailed the soundproofing installer and landlord to ask when soundproofing would be installed.
On 11 May 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that following the government’s announcement regarding the easing of Covid restrictions the previous evening, it would be having a meeting the following day to discuss the soundproofing works and that it would let the resident know shortly afterwards when the works could be completed.
The resident emailed the landlord for an update on 13 May 2020 and on 19 May 2020 stating that he would not be willing to vacate his property so the works could go ahead, explaining that he was concerned about leaving people in his house when he was not there and about the risk to his own health of walking the streets all day for a week given the continued risk from Covid 19.
On 27 May 2020, the landlord’s technical officer emailed the resident suggesting appointment on 3 June for them, the asbestos removal contractor and the heating engineers to visit to look at the best way to safely relocate the radiator. The landlord said that they would be as quick as possible and would be wearing PPE.
On 3 June 2020, the resident emailed the technical officer, thanking them for visiting that day and to ask when the soundproofing installers would be returning and that when they did that they work in pairs and in one room at a time.
On 23 June 2020:
1. The landlord replied to the resident, apologising for the delay in the soundproofing works and any inconvenience this had caused him. The landlord acknowledged that the works had been ongoing for some time, mainly due to Covid 19 restrictions between 23 March and 10 May 2020, and that work was also needed to relocate some of the heating pipework and electrical cables before the new soundproof wall could be installed. The landlord advised that the soundproofing installers could fit the new soundproofing wall on 30 and 31 July 2020 and asked that the resident confirm if those dates were convenient.
2. The resident refused the appointment on 31 July 2020, saying that he had made a complaint and wanted it dealt with, that the delays had nothing to do with Covid restrictions and that if the asbestos and pipe work had been dealt with before the soundproofing installers had been booked there would not have been any delays.
3. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint would be logged and responded to within the next 10 days and asked the resident to provide two consecutive days, if he was not available on 30 and 31 July 2020, and they would check if the installers could attend on the resident’s selected dates.
4. The resident said that he was not going to commit to any dates nor would he make an appointment for the heating contractor to remove the pipe work.
Between 26 and 30 June 2020 there was a number of emails between the resident and the landlord regarding the time taken to complete soundproofing works, the resident’s complaint, allegations made that the resident had been aggressive towards installers that had attended earlier that year, arrangements for the works to be completed, potential delays if another soundproofing company was to become involved, the resident vacating the property, the removal of soundproofing material from his garden and the resident’s request for some additional sockets. During this time the landlord was also contacted by the resident’s representative regarding the same issues.
On 1 July 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and his representative advising that as it had not received the go ahead for the radiator and pipework on 3 July and the installation of soundproofing on 30 and 31 July 2021 the work would be cancelled with the contractors concerned.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 2 July 2020. The landlord apologised to the resident saying that it was very sorry that it had taken so long to complete the works and for any inconvenience and distress this may have caused. The landlord:
1. Explained that the main reasons for the delay were it had not prepared the lounge properly ahead of the installers visit on 9 March 2020, the identification of asbestos in the lounge meant that it had to agree a different fixing method for the soundproofing, the government imposed lockdown and that the installers second visit on 18 March 2020 had not been communicated to the resident in advance.
2. Confirmed that it had arranged for its heating engineer to attend on 3 July 2020 to remove the radiator and pipework and for the soundproofing to be installed on 30 and 31 July 2020. However, the soundproofing installers had said that the resident would need to vacate the premises for them to complete the works, which the resident had refused to do, and so both jobs were cancelled.
3. Noted that it had since agreed with the resident that it would source a different soundproofing installer and would look to rebook the works as quickly as possible.
4. Said that it could carry out the works to install the additional sockets and remove the loose soundproofing material the following week if the resident could let it know how many sockets he would like, where he would like them and when he would like the works carried out.
On 7 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to say that at that point, due to health issues, he would not be taking his complaint any further. The resident asked that the landlord let him know when the soundproofing contractors had been booked and to let him know when the soundproofing material in his garden would be removed. In a separate email the resident told the landlord not to converse with his representative any more.
On 8 July 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that they would no longer correspond with his representative, that the removal of soundproofing materials from front garden would take place on 13 July 2020. The resident was asked if he would like the operatives to ring his doorbell to let him know they had arrived or would prefer them not to do so. The landlord also confirmed that the electrical works had been put on hold as requested.
On 10 July 2020 a meeting of the landlord, the Council and the OT took place. At the meeting the landlord acknowledged its responsibility of two delays in completing the soundproofing and reported that the resident was refusing to leave his property for the installers to return and complete the works. The landlord noted that the installers had refused to return if the resident was present. The landlord proposed allocating a third contractor to complete the works, at no extra cost to the Council, and that it would obtain written confirmation from the resident that he was in agreement with that plan. The landlord also said that it would arrange to test the sound levels before and after completion.
On 25 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord regarding the outcome from sound test that had been carried out that day.
On 26 August 2020, the resident said that the landlord had made him too anxious to sleep or to continue with the soundproofing and asked the landlord to cancel the installation, which the landlord agreed to do in a follow up email the same day. The landlord also advised the resident that it would also contact the Council to let them know.
On 4 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that he did now want the soundproofing works to be carried out and for the landlord to liaise with his representative again regarding dates, which his representative could then pass on to him.
The landlord replied on 7 September 2020, confirming that it would be making arrangements for the pipework and radiators to be moved and the soundproofing to be installed, the dates for which it would agree with the resident’s representative. The landlord emailed the resident regarding his complaint the following day saying that it hoped the actions it had agreed to take had resolved his complaint at stage one. However, if that were not the case he could escalate it to stage two.
On 10 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident’s representative to advise that the installer could install the soundproofing on 12 October 2020. The representative responded to the same day to instruct the landlord to make the necessary arrangements and to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two.
On 24 September 2020, the resident’s representative confirmed that the resident was expecting the soundproofing to be installed on 12 and 13 October 2020 and the electrical sockets to be made good on 14 October 2020. The representative asked the landlord to confirm that the radiator and pipes would be relocated in the preceding week to minimise disruption and stress to the resident
On 2 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to say that it would like to visit, with its gas engineer, to agree how to relocate the radiators and pipework. The landlord suggested that it attend on 6 October 2020, if that was convenient, the relocation of the radiators would then take place on 8 October, on 12 and 13 October the soundproofing would be installed and on 14 October 2020 the electrical sockets would be replaced. The landlord also advised that it needed to also book in the plasterers and decorators to finish the works and that it would be in touch again when those works had been booked in.
On 22 October 2020, the soundproofing works were completed.
On 9 November 2020, the resident emailed landlord asking that his complaint now be considered at stage two.
On 10 November 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to say that as the plastering works had now been completed it would like to book an appointment for the reconnection of electric sockets, re-decoration of walls and fitting of skirting board on 13 November 2020. The landlord said that this would involve an electrician and two decorators who would look to start at 8am and that it was happy to offer the resident alternative accommodation in the form of a Bed and Breakfast for two nights whilst the works took place. The resident responded the following day to say probably would not be comfortable in a Bed and Breakfast, that he wouldn’t have anywhere for his dog to stay and that he did not know why he wasn’t offered alternative accommodation when the soundproofing was installed.
The outstanding works were completed on 13 November 2020.
The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint on 28 May 2021, following a complaint panel meeting on 21 May 2021 which the resident attended. In its response the landlord again apologised to the resident for the delays with the installation of the soundproofing at his property and said that:
1. Improvements in its asbestos procedures had been rectified following the roll out of a new computer system and the tightening of procedures.
2. It acknowledged the stress and upset caused by it not providing the resident with notice of contractors’ visits, contractors turning up without appointments and early in the morning, and that it would be looking at what could be done to amend its appointment system and to provide more flexible appointment times.
3. It felt its staff had acted in a professional and respectful manner and had made efforts to support the resident throughout to offer support to find solutions and to respond to his concerns. However, it acknowledged that the resident did not feel that his individual needs, because of his autism, had been given due consideration or understanding. To remedy this the landlord said that it wanted to do all it could to learn from the resident’s experience and had recommended additional neurodiversity training for all its staff.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had incurred additional costs and disruption during the works and offered the resident £500 compensation.

The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s request to move and that it would continue to work with the local Councils to advocate for his application and enable him to move.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The soundproofing works were initially referred to the landlord on 12 June 2019. The landlord acted promptly in response to the referral, arranging for its Disabled Adaptations Technical Officer to visit the resident property within 20 working days, on 9 July 2019, to assess the works.
Following the approval of the works by the Council, the landlord again acted promptly, arranging for the works to commence on 16 September 2019, eight working days later.
When the installers attended on 16 September 2019, the resident had concerns about the works that were due to be carried out and suggested an alternative method of installation. It was agreed that the resident’s suggestions would be considered, and the resident was advised at that time that a change of installer would likely result in the works taking longer.
By 2 October 2019, a revised quote had been agreed by the DFG manager. However, on 4 October 2019 the resident emailed both the landlord and the OT to advise that he wanted to get his own quote before any works were started. This was again agreed to and on 29 January 2020, the landlord raised a job for the resident’s nominated specialist soundproofing installer to carry out the works.
The works commenced on 9 March 2020, 28 days later and again within a reasonable period of time. However, it was only at this point that suspected asbestos was identified by the installer, which resulted in the soundproofing works being halted whilst an alternative method of installation was agreed. It did not immediately acknowledge its failure to carry out the necessary pre-works checks, including providing the soundproofing installer with a copy of the asbestos report for the property. However, this was acknowledged by the landlord in both its stage one response and in its final response in which it also confirmed that it had also learnt from this failure by making improvements in its asbestos procedures.
The landlord acted promptly to resolve the asbestos issue and the work was planned to recommence on 18 March 2020, seven working days later. However, the resident refused the installers access as he had not been provided with any notice, which the landlord should have provided him with, most especially as it was aware that he had autism and should have been aware of the impact such last-minute arrangements might have on him. In this case the landlord did not fully recognise this failure until its final response of 28 May 2021. However, in that response it acknowledged the stress and upset caused to the resident by not providing notice of contractors’ visits, said that it would be looking to improve its appointments system and to provide more flexible appointment times, and said that it would be recommending neurodiversity training for all its staff.
Three working days later the Government imposed a national lockdown due to Covid 19, during which time the recommendation to landlords was that access to a property was only proposed for essential repairs and urgent issues such as inspecting and testing fire alarm and emergency lighting systems.
On 11 May 2020, the government issued guidance to landlord to ensure the safety of resident’s and workers, including when it is safe to work in someone’s home. The same day the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it would be meeting to discuss the soundproofing works. This was a prompt response by the landlord to the change in government guidance and evidenced that it had not only kept track of the soundproofing works during lockdown but also recognised the urgency with which they now needed to be progressed.
Given, that there would have been a backlog of repairs that the landlord needed address, that the landlord arranged for its asbestos removal contractor and heating engineer to visit the resident’s property on 3 June 2020 and was in a position to offer the resident an appointment for 30 and 31 July 2020 for the soundproofing to be installed on 30 and 31 July 2020 again demonstrates that the landlord recognised the urgency of the works.
Between 26 and 30 June 2020 there is evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident regarding his concerns about the work. However, as the landlord had not received confirmation from the resident regarding the go ahead for the pipe and radiator work on 3 July and the installation of the soundproofing on 23 July 2020 it was reasonable for the landlord to cancel the contractors concerned. It is noted that during this period the possibility of engaging another contractor was discussed and in its stage one response of 2 July 2020 the landlord noted it had agreed to do this.
In a multi-agency meeting, with the Council and the OT, on 10 July 2020, the landlord proposed the allocation of the soundproofing works to a new contractor and agreed to arrange to test the sound levels before and after completion. The pre-test was completed on 25 August 2020.
The following day, 26 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to cancel the works and then 4 September 2020 advised that he now wanted them to go ahead. The landlord acted promptly to the resident’s request and the next working day, 7 September 2020, contacted the resident to confirm that it would be making arrangements for both the pipe and radiator works, and the soundproofing to go ahead.
It is unclear when the pipe and radiator works were completed, however, the soundproofing works were completed on 22 October 2020, 33 working days after the landlord had agreed to reinstate the works. By the 10 November 2020 the plastering works had been completed and the reconnection of electric sockets, re-decoration of walls and fitting of skirting board completed on 13 November 2020.
The soundproofing works took a long time to complete, having been first referred on 12 June 2019 and not being fully completed until 13 November 2020, some 17 months later. It is also clear that this delay caused the resident a significant amount of distress.
Whilst the landlord was responsible for, and acknowledged, some of the delay, most especially towards the beginning of the process, the progress of the works was also affected by government covid restrictions, the resident’s requests that new installers be sourced and by the resident on a number of occasions asking the landlord to cancel the works. Whilst it is important to understand and recognise the increased distress, anxiety and upset the works and the delays caused the resident due to his autism, this nevertheless had an impact on the landlord’s ability to progress with the works.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
Given its acknowledged services failures, it was appropriate for the landlord to not only apologise to the resident but also to offer him £500 compensation.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider paying compensation where its service has been substantially below the standard expected and has caused considerable inconvenience. The policy goes on to state that the Assistant Director of Customer Services will approve compensation up to £250 and that any compensation above this level will be approved by the Chief Executive.
Given the impact on the resident, particularly in relation to his vulnerability, it was appropriate for the compensation offered to be at a level that would require approval by the Chief Executive. The £500 is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance in respect of complaints where there have been serious failures which have already been recognised and resolved by landlord.
The landlord has also evidenced that it had learned from the complaint referring to making improvements in its asbestos procedures, looking to improve its appointments system, to provide more flexible appointment times and recommending neurodiversity training for all its staff.
I am therefore satisfied that whilst there were service failures by the landlord, these were acknowledged, and appropriate redress offered to resolve the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of soundproofing works to the resident’s property.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for its service failures, recognised and put steps in place to ensure that it made appropriate improvements going forward, and paid the resident £500 compensation. The landlord also recognised the need for further training in relation to neurodiversity which it said it would be recommending for all its staff.

Recommendations

That it, if it has not done so already; the landlord is to pay the resident the £500 it offered in its final response to the complaint.