Home Group Limited (202113815)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113815

Home Group Limited

19 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
1. the resident’s report of noise disturbance
2. the resident’s request for sound proofing
3. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared owner and the lease commenced on 21 September 2018.
The property is described as a two-bedroom purpose built flat on the second floor.
The landlord’s property management policy advises that properties will be inspected to ensure compliance with industry standards and that the developer is responsible for any defective works within the defects liability period which can last from between 12 -24 months.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy advises that is focused on prevention and resolving issues before they escalate. It advises that it uses a risk assessment matrix agreed with the resident to prioritise the most serious cases and that it will ensure residents are kept informed of progress following the report of an incident. In addition, it states that anonymity is important and if this is not possible the resident will be informed at the time of reporting.

It will work with other agencies such as the police and local authority to investigate and tackle ASB.

The landlord’s website has a page called ‘Living in your home and neighbourhood customer guide which explains that ASB covers a wide range of activities such as noise nuisance.
The landlord’s complaints, compliments, and comments policy states that it will answer initial complaints within 20 working days and complaints escalated to the final stage within 20 working days.
The landlord’s doing it the right way, discretionary compensation policy sets out its approach to compensation payments where there has been service failure and that each case will be assessed on its merits.
The resident’s complaint concerns a neighbour who is also a shared owner of the landlord and is the alleged perpetrator of the reported ASB.

Summary of Events

There has been a considerable amount of communication between the resident and the landlord regarding her reports of ASB and her request that the landlord carry out soundproofing works to the property. The resident’s disappointment with the landlord’s approach to resolving the complaints has been noted and all the available evidence has been carefully considered. This report will not be addressing each specific issue or incident, rather it will reflect the key points and events which have been summarised. The report will provide a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the issues.
The available records show that the resident reported incidents of noise disturbance in February 2019 from her neighbour. The noise issues related to sounds of drilling, banging and furniture being dragged. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 14 March 2019 and the neighbour disputed the noise originated from his address. The resident confirmed in July 2019 that she could no longer hear any drilling sounds but continued to report sounds of banging from the neighbour’s address.
The resident contacted the National House Building (NHBC) on 19 June 2019 requesting that it carry out an evaluation of the sound proofing and insulation to the property as the walls were thin and she can hear ‘heavy footsteps, banging in the walls’ from the neighbour’s property. In response, the NHBC, informed the resident on 10 July 2019 that the issues she had described would be considered ASB and therefore not considered under its resolution cover and signposted her to her landlord.
The landlord’s record show that it carried out a visit to the resident’s home on 22 July 2019 to carry out a case review. The resident advised that since April 2019, the noise levels had been general household noise and that there had not been any further occurrences of drilling. The landlord explained that general household noise would not be considered as ASB and that it would request that its maintenance team investigate the sound proofing levels.
It is noted in the landlord’s records on 23 September 2019 that the developer had confirmed that the properties had undergone sound proofing testing.
The landlord arranged to meet the resident and her neighbour on 14 October 2019 regarding the noise reports and to produce an action plan following the meeting. Evidence seen by this Service indicate that the meeting did not take place due to the unavailability of the neighbour.
There are no further reports until 19 January 2020 when the resident reported that the ‘owner and his flat mate are out of control’ and requested the action plan to reduce the noise disturbance. In response, the landlord reviewed the ASB reports on 26 January 2020 and assessed the ASB reports as unacceptable.
The resident complained on 21 March 2020 that the noise disturbance was ‘getting worse’. She advised that she had experienced shouting and banging from the neighbours flat and she wanted to obtain a resolution and disputed that the person occupying the property had occupancy rights as a shared owner.
The landlord informed the resident on 23 March 2020 that he had spoken to the neighbour regarding the noise reports of shouting and was waiting for feedback from the noise pollution team.
The resident made another report on 2 April 2020 that the neighbour was talking loudly and the TV was on loud after midnight. She requested confirmation that the neighbour had legal rights of occupation. In response, on 3 April 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it would obtain legal advice.
The landlord informed the resident on 14 April 2020 that it had received the advice from its legal team, that it would produce an action plan and that the resident should continue to supply evidence of the noise disturbance. In addition, it also explained that its service delivery had been impacted by the Covid 19 pandemic.
The following day (15 April 2020) the resident contacted the landlord to make a new report of loud singing, the loudness of her neighbour’s TV and requested the action plan by 17 April 2020. She expressed that she would stop paying the rent and her service charge payments if the landlord did not act. In addition, she requested that the landlord agree an exchange to another property if it was unable to act.
On 16 April 2020, the landlord responded to the resident. It apologised for not communicating effectively with her, confirmed that its housing and legal teams were taking action regarding the noise disturbance and that it was looking into her concerns regarding the status of the people occupying the neighbour’s property. It advised that it was limited regarding the information it could share and confirmed that the sound proofing report had been requested from the developer, but it had not been received. Furthermore, it advised that she should continue sending evidence to support her concerns about the noise levels experienced in her property.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails on 5 May 2020 and 7 May 2020 as the resident requested to be kept informed of the tenancy actions taken by the landlord regarding the neighbour’s occupancy of the property. The landlord gave reasons explaining why the information could not be shared, advised if it did not receive current reports that would affect its ability to take action to remedy the reported noise disturbance and set out the legal process that it had to follow to take legal action against a shared owner.
The resident informed the landlord on 12 May 2020 that she believed that the sound proofing to the property was inadequate and requested an update from the developer.
On 26 May 2020, the resident reported further noise reports between 18 May 2020 to 21 May 2020 of heavy footsteps, loud music and arguments. The resident reported that on 23 May 2020 the police attended following reports of ‘loud noises like arguing from 10.30pm to 1am from a neighbouring property’.
The resident reported on 30 June 2020 that there was a quiet period between 31 May 2020 to 13 June 2020.
The resident provided diary sheets from 13 June 2020 to September 2020 describing that she could hear her neighbour ‘pulling stuff, heavy footsteps throughout the flat, bangs and vibrations in the walls and ceiling.
On 2 July 2020, the resident emailed the NHBC describing noise coming through the separating wall and floor and that on weekends, her neighbour had loud parties. She requested the NHBC help in obtaining confirmation that the property was correctly insulated.
The NHBC responded on 14 July 2020 confirming its previous advice that loud noise and excessive noise is considered ASB rather than a building defect.
The resident complained to the landlord on 29 July 2020 that she had been communicating with the landlord for over eighteen months about the noise disturbance. She had been informed that the matter had been referred to the landlord’s legal department, advised to keep reporting incidents and had not achieved a resolution.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 September 2020 to chase the complaint response and advised that she was unhappy that the landlord had reshared information with her neighbour without her consent.
On 16 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and requested compensation for the delay she had experienced in obtaining a resolution. As an outcome, she requested a discount of the full purchase price and the monthly rent of the property, for the landlord to agree to soundproof the ceiling and walls in the flat or buy back the flat. She advised that the noise disturbance occurred when the neighbour’s flat mate was occupying the property.
On 21 September 2020, a further report was received from the resident regarding the noise disturbance from the neighbour. She provided a snapshot of the WhatsApp message she had shared at 2am on the 18 September 2020 requesting that the neighbour reduced the level of noise coming from his property.
It is noted in the landlord records on 22 September 2020 that it had checked with the noise pollution team who had advised that it did not provide noise recording equipment to residents.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 24 September 2020. It concluded:
1. that it was taking the appropriate action in line with its tenancy policy to resolve her complaints of noise disturbance and that it was limited in the information it could share with her
2. if she decided not to report further incidences, that would limit the action it could take
3. signposted her to the noise pollution team if she didn’t want to continue to work with the landlord
4. advised that her complaint would be escalated to the next stage of the complaint procedure as she had requested.
The resident advised on 1 October 2020 that she remained dissatisfied with the complaint response as the landlord had not addressed her request for compensation, that her original concerns were about ASB and this had extended to the sound insulation of the building. She requested compensation for the poor service, a discount of the purchase price of the property and that she wanted the landlord to either insulate the ceilings and the walls or to buy back the property.
The landlord responded at the final stage of the complaint procedure on 29 October 2020. It concluded that:
1. due to the resident’s unavailability, it was unable to meet with her and the landlord to assess the level of noise disturbance
2. the NHBC had assessed the noise disturbance as a low-level issue to be addressed between the parties
3. signposted her to the noise pollution team and provided their procedure for reporting noise pollution
4. acknowledged that its communication with her could have been better
5. they work together to agree an ASB action plan and to engage with mediation between her and her neighbour
6. the moving in pack was available from the developer provided the online link for her to obtain it electronically
7. a compensation award of £55 was appropriate for the delays and the quality of the communication she had experienced.
8. the attached report for a similar property built by the developer, showed that the sound proofing and insulation were to the appropriate standard and no defect had been identified

It attached a report for a similar property built by the developer which showed that the sound proofing and insulation were to the appropriate standard and no defect had been identified

The resident contacted the landlord on 12 November 2020. She disputed that she was unavailable to attend meetings in October 2019 to assess the noise disturbance which started once the neighbour had moved in February 2019. She described the noise as bangs, booms on the ceiling, heavy footsteps, loud music, loud voices, parties and arguments and requested that the landlord carry out a similar report to assess the sound insulation within her block.
It is noted that the landlord reviewed the resident’s concern on 13 November 2020 and agreed to liaise with the developer to obtain a sound proofing report. The landlord agreed to meet with the resident once the lockdown restrictions lifted in December 2020 to complete the ASB checklist and to check the lease regarding the other party in the neighbouring property.
The resident chased the landlord for a complaint response on 25 November 2020 and 3 December 2020. The resident and landlord agreed for a virtual meeting to take place on 10 December 2020 regarding the outstanding issues and exchanged emails between 16 December 2020 and 21 January 2021 regarding the resident’s request for an independent sound proofing survey to the building. The resident advised that she was happy to attend mediation.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 27 January 2021 that it was undertaking further enquiries regarding her dissatisfaction with the final complaint response and that some of the matters raised regarding the sound proofing were new matters not raised in the original complaint.
Between 5 March 2021 and 30 March 2021, the resident chased the response to the follow-on complaint response. The landlord confirmed that the concerns raised were under investigation, it had resourcing issues and agreed for the survey to be commissioned to check the sound proofing of the resident’s home.
It is recorded in the landlord’s records on 30 March 2021, that it did not have a mediation service as the service was out for tender.
The resident chased the complaint response on 20 April 2021, 23 April and 10 May 2021.
The landlord informed the resident on 20 May 2021 that it had supplied its complaint response on 30 October 2020, so she could escalate her complaint for external adjudication.
The landlord informed the resident on 21 May 2021 that it had instructed an independent company to carry out the soundproof testing.
On 28 May 2021 a new ASB incident occurred involving loud music from the neighbour’s property. The police were called and the resident advised to cease contact with the neighbour.
The resident chased the complaint response on 8 June 2021, 11 June 2021 and 28 June 2021.
It is recorded in the landlord’s records that it received no response from the first company it approached to carry out the soundproof test and it had to contact an alternative supplier.
It is recorded that the sound proofing test was carried out on 27 July 2021. On the same day, the resident disputed the testing procedure stating that the test was not carried out using specialised testing equipment
The landlord contacted the sound proofing company on the same day 27 July 2021, outlining the resident’s concerns.
It is recorded that the sound proofing report was received on 5 August 2021, noting that the issues complained about stem from resident’s behaviour and use patterns and that as both residents had laminated flooring this would amplify noise from footsteps or items being dropped.
On 21 September 2021, the survey company confirmed that it was able to stimulate the noises as part of the test, that the app was calibrated with the sound meter and that it did not determine that a fault with the building or with the sound insulation.
The landlord sent the resident a follow up final complaint response on 28 September 2021. It concluded that:
1. it had considered matters that had not been raised in the original complaint
2. the delay in commissioning the survey was affected by the lock down period after the Christmas period and the maintenance team were affected by Covid 19 and contractors that were self-isolating
3. it had prioritised emergency and urgent repairs during the pandemic and apologised for the significant delay she had received
4. the noise reports were sporadic and occurred mainly at night-time
5. within the homes of both residents there were hard surfaces which would cause an amplification of sound and were generally considered resident behaviour
6. it did not identify a fault in its building or in the sound insulation
7. an award of £255 compensation was appropriate – £100 for its delays in arranging the survey, £100 for delays in providing a further complaint response and the £55 offered at the initial stage of the complaint procedure.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the response to the complaint and escalated her complaint to this Service. She expressed that she remained dissatisfied with the sound proofing test carried out by the landlord and wanted assurance that this had been correctly carried out. In addition, she asserted that the landlord had shared information with her neighbour that she did not consent to and remained unhappy with the landlord’s suggestions to manage the ASB. In addition, she wants the landlord to investigate whether there are illegal subtenants in occupation at the building.

Assessment and findings

It is clear from the resident’s submissions that she has been distressed by the ongoing noise disturbances and that she believes that the landlord had failed to take strong action to resolve the problem.
The resident’s feelings are acknowledged and it is appreciated that dealing with the noise incidents would have been stressful for the resident. It is not the Ombudsman’s role in such situations to investigate the actual ASB itself, but to look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and her concerns and whether it acted reasonably and in accordance with its policies.

the resident’s report of noise disturbance

Looking at the facts of the case and the available evidence, the resident made reports in February 2019 that she could hear drilling coming from the neighbour’s flat which were dealt with appropriately. The landlord wrote to her neighbour in March 2019 about the noise level taking place after midnight, and the resident confirmed that that the drilling noise had stopped.
The resident continued to make reports of noise disturbance which were similar in nature in terms of the general noise complained about. The evidence shows that the landlord took steps to investigate these reports in line with its ASB procedure. It visited the resident in July 2019 and arranged for a meeting to take place between the resident and the neighbour in October 2019. The meeting did not occur and the landlord in its initial complaint response said that this was due to the resident being unavailable. This was not correct rather a convenient date and time could not be agreed between the resident and her neighbour which resulted in the neighbour missing the agreed appointment.
The resident contacted the NHBC in July 2020 regarding the noise reports and its assessment was that the reports amounted to low level ASB. The NHBC reaffirmed its assessment in July 2020. The evidence suggests that the noise pollution team did not inform the landlord that the noise complained about – loud music, arguments, tv being on loud amounted to a finding of a statutory nuisance therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the noise complained about amounted to household noise.
The landlord advised the resident that it would agree an action plan to manage the reported ASB. However, there is no evidence that this was ever completed, even though it had assessed the noise levels as unacceptable in January 2020 and reviewed its actions in November 2020 after it had issued its complaint response. This was inappropriate as the plan would have set out the actions it planned to take, monitored the impact and importantly, provided the resident with information on when she would receive updates.
The landlord obtained legal advice in April 2020 regarding the noise levels reported by the resident. This was in accordance with its ASB policy and appropriate action to take to determine what action it could take to remedy the noise experienced by the resident. The landlord explained to the resident that to take successful legal action, it could not rely on the historic reports, it would need for her to keep reporting the nuisance for the legal action to be successful to demonstrate the nuisance was on going and to demonstrate the nature and severity of the noise disturbance. It was reasonable at this time to manage the resident’s expectations, that it could not take action using solely her previous reports but needed evidence that the nuisance was ongoing.
The landlord explained that taking legal enforcement action against a leaseholder would take additional time and provided information on the likely timescales that it would take for it to act. The explanation was reasonable as the resident was getting frustrated with the time taken to obtain a resolution as she was making reports of noise disturbance from the neighbour’s property and despite the reports, there appeared to be a lack of action from the landlord.
The resident advised that she believed there were other people in occupation other than the shared owner in his property and asked to be kept informed about the tenancy action it was taking in relation to the occupancy of the neighbour’s address. The landlord has explained in its initial complaint response that it was limited in the information that it could share about its tenancy action. This was appropriate advice as the General Data Protection Provisions sets out the data sharing protocols that organisations must work within. However, there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated on the actions that it was taking which would have alleviated some of her concerns.
The resident expressed that she believed that the landlord had breached her confidence by resharing information with her neighbour in an email that she sent on 4 September 2020. This concern is not addressed in the landlord’s complaint response. However, the resident did speak to the landlord about the ASB and the complaint response on 23 September 2020 and 25 September 2020 which was an opportunity for the resident to address the matter with the landlord. The available information does not show that this issue was discussed, and the resident has advised that this concern remains outstanding. A recommendation has been made about this later in the report regarding the outstanding issue.
The landlord offered mediation to get the parties to work together to address the reports of noise nuisance. The resident accepted the offer in January 2021, however it took the landlord until March 2021 to realise that it did not have a company that could carry out the mediation. This was a service failure as it raised the resident’s expectation regarding the offered mediation and the evidence suggests that it did not inform the resident that this solution was not feasible once it realised that it did not have a company to refer her to.
The landlord signposted the resident to the noise pollution team and contacted the team on 23 December 2020 who did not determine that they had witnessed a statutory nuisance regarding the reports of music and parties that the resident had reported. In addition, they informed the landlord that they did not have noise recording equipment that it could use to determine whether a statutory nuisance had been committed. This limited the action available to the landlord to assess the amount of noise experienced by the resident.
Following reports of music and loud arguments from the neighbour’s address the police attended in May 2020. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence to determine what action it took in accordance with its ASB procedure such as the issue of a warning letter. In addition, it has not shown what advice it provided to the resident This is inappropriate as the resident had expressed the difficulty, she experienced living with the noise disturbance and that she felt disappointed with the lack of response from the landlord.
There were no further reports from May 2021 until September 2021, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to monitor the situation and decide whether it needed to take any further tenancy action.
The landlord records show that on the whole, it responded to the reports of noise related ASB within a reasonable period and explained what it had done. However, it failed to complete an action plan with the resident, agreeing the actions it would take and when she would receive the appropriate updates especially as the resident chased it on 19 January 2020 and on 15 April 2020. The landlord accepted the reports of music was unacceptable from the neighbour’s address in January 2020 and once it had obtained the legal advice, the landlord has not evidenced the steps taken to reduce the ASB. The landlord has acknowledged in its complaint response that it could have communicated better with the resident and the action plan would have given reassurance that it had taken her concerns seriously and provided progress reports on the actions it proposed to take.

the resident’s request for sound proofing

The role of the Ombudsman is not to assess whether the resident experienced an excessive amount of noise transference but to determine whether the landlord took reasonable steps to address the issue. It should be noted that that landlord had an obligation to ensure that the building met the building regulations that were relevant at the time the property was constructed.
Looking at the issue of the resident’s request for soundproofing, this was raised in February 2019 and the landlord agreed to consider this when it visited her property in July 2019. The landlord acted reasonably by following this up with the developer who advised that the building was compliant with the sound proofing regulations.
It advised the resident in April 2020 that her welcome pack contained the contact details for the developer, who was the responsible person she should raise her concerns to. This was appropriate as this information was already held by the resident when she purchased the property and as it was a new build property the developer was responsible for any defects.
While the landlord had assessed that property complied with building regulations it continued to investigate the concerns the resident raised.
The landlord within its complaint response provided the resident with a copy of a report to a similar building built at the same time, of a similar design by the developer. The report concluded that the building was compliant with the building regulations. This was also in accordance with the advice that the resident had received from the NHBC that the concerns she described was unlikely to be a building defect. It was also reasonable for the landlord to have shared the results with the resident as the building was built at the same time, of similar construction and built by the same developer, though it is accepted that the report was not compiled for her building.
The landlord agreed to the resident’s request to carry out a sound proofing test of the building following her repeated reports of noise disturbance. However, there was a lengthy delay in the landlord receiving the report due to the Covid 19 pandemic. It advised that during the period it has prioritised emergency and urgent repairs, members of its maintenance staff had to self-isolate causing resource issues and it had trouble getting a contractor to carry out the test. The situation presented by the covid-19 pandemic was an unprecedented one and the circumstances were such that it affected the landlord’s service delivery and that of its contractors. The landlord has recognised that there was shortfall in its service delivery, explained and apologised to the resident for this. The landlord has adequately addressed this part of the complaint and no further action is necessary in this regard.
The sound proofing test determined that the sound proofing in the building met industry standards and did not identify any faults with the building. Given the nature of the noise nuisance – the resident’s report of ‘ heavy footsteps, banging, vibrations’ it is not unreasonable for the landlord to rely upon the findings of the test and the professional opinion of the officers who carried out the test as it concluded that the reports were likely to be general household activity amplified by the hard wood surfaces in the property.
The resident raised concerns about the methodology used by the company undertaking the sound proofing tests and the landlord carried out checks with the company to satisfy itself that the methodology used by the company met industry standards.
The landlord has offered compensation of £100 for the delay in providing the sound proofing report. In considering whether the landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable, the Ombudsman has taken into account the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service own Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes and our own published Remedies Guidance.
One of the factors, that the Ombudsman considers is whether the redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord. The resident had to chase the landlord to receive the report and it failed to communicate effectively with her. The offer of compensation reflects the service failure in the delay experienced by the resident and is considered reasonable redress.

the related complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy sets out the timeframes for responses. The resident complained on 29 July 2020 regarding the landlord’s responses to the noise report. The landlord answered the complaint over two months later on 1 October 2020 – which is outside its published time frames. This is not reasonable especially as the resident had to chase the complaint response with the landlord on more than one occasion which may have given the impression that it had not taken her concerns seriously.
The resident escalated her complaint on 1 October 2020 and it responded at the final stage on 29 October 2020. It apologised and offered compensation of £55.This was appropriate as it had reviewed its previous responses and recognised its service failings.
The resident remained dissatisfied and advised the landlord that she wanted it to review its final complaint response. It agreed to do this. This was appropriate as it was clear that the resident remained dissatisfied, and it wanted to find a resolution to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s complaint procedure is silent on the time frames for handling requests from its residents who remain unhappy with its final complaint response. Once the landlord agrees to review its final complaint response, it would be reasonable to expect it to respond within the same time frame of 20 working days as required for its final complaint response.
The resident had to continually chase the landlord for its follow up complaint response. However, the landlord did inform the resident of her escalation rights by escalating her concerns to this Service. This was appropriate as this gave the resident the opportunity to achieve a complaint resolution by using this service.
The landlord responded on 28 September 2021, this was over 12 months later despite the resident chasing the landlord for its response on ten separate occasions between November 2020 and June 2021. This was an unreasonable length of time to take to respond to the resident’s follow up complaint as it could have provided an earlier response in March 2021 and May 2021 once it had agreed to carry out the sound proofing test.
The resident spent an unnecessary amount of time chasing the landlord for its complaint response. The landlord recognised this, apologised for the delay, provided an explanation for its delayed response and awarded compensation of £100 for the delay in providing the delayed follow up final complaint response. The offer of compensation does not appropriately reflect the service failure for the unacceptable time taken to respond to the resident’s concerns. Therefore, the landlord should pay an additional compensation award of £150 to the resident to properly reflect this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling the resident’s report of noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for sound proofing.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord investigated the reports it received regarding the noise disturbance. However, it did not agree an action plan with the resident which would have given progress updates at the appropriate times to manage the resident’s continued concerns and may have reduced the delay she experienced.
The landlord agreed to carry out a sound proofing test to confirm the building complied with the relevant building regulations. The resident experienced an unacceptable delay in the test being carried out and the landlord has apologised and offered an award of compensation for this.
The landlord failed to provide a follow up complaint final response within a reasonable time frame. Though it informed the resident that she could escalate her concerns to this Service, the resident had to chase the landlord for its response. The landlord has apologised and offered an award of compensation that does not correctly reflect the inconvenience and delay experienced by the resident to obtain a response to her concerns.

Order

The landlord to write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified in this report
The landlord to pay compensation of £350 for the service failures identified in this report, broken down as
1. £200 for the failures in its investigation following her reports of noise disturbance
2. £150 for the delay and inconvenience experienced by the resident in its handling of the complaint.
The landlord to investigate whether it shared information with the resident’s neighbour around 4 September 2020 without her consent and inform the resident of its findings in writing.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report

Recommendation

If it has not already done so, the landlord is to pay the compensation award of £255 agreed in its complaint response dated 28 September 2021.
The landlord should consider as part of its self-assessment against the Complaint Handling Code, whether it needs to set a time frame for its handling of follow on final stage complaint that it agrees to review.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.