London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202108843)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108843

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

30 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of issues experienced with her electricity meter.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fly tipping.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s assertion that she was given incorrect information during the property purchase process.
4. The landlord’s decision to install a privacy screen on the balcony and its approach to this matter.
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that a window had smashed at her property.
6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme, this Service has determined that point (a) of the complaint falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is as it would have been reasonable for the resident to have brought her complaint to this Service for investigation at an earlier time.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident first raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her energy issue in July 2019 and was issued with a final response on 13 September 2019. At this time, if the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, it would have been reasonable for her to have brought this complaint to the Ombudsman Service. Consideration of the resident’s correspondence at this time demonstrates that she was aware of her right to do this.
Paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme explains that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, as the complaint was not referred to this Service by 13 September 2020, no comment will be made in relation to this matter.
What’s more, this Service has determined that complaint point (b) also falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is as it does not appear that the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s response to her reports of fly tipping exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. While a stage one response dated 15 November 2021 was shared, this Service has not seen that the matter was considered or responded to at stage two.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme explains that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which 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. Therefore, if the resident wishes to pursue this matter, she will need to first exhaust the landlord’s complaints process. As a matter which did not form part of the original complaint, if the resident does decide to bring this matter back to the Ombudsman Service, this will be considered under a separate complaint reference and as a separate matter.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident became a (joint) shared ownership leaseholder, in respect of the property, on 10 December 2014.
The resident occupies the property with her husband who is also a shared ownership leaseholder.
The property is a two-bedroom flat located on the second floor.

Scope

This Service recognises that in 2015 and 2016, the resident made several reports of noise being emitted by her neighbour living in the property above. Noise monitoring equipment was installed on or around this time and both parties also engaged in mediation in an attempt to resolve the situation.
While this demonstrates that the resident had been reporting concerns about noise nuisance as far back as 2015 (or potentially earlier as she claimed), and raises questions about how the landlord responded at this time, this investigation will not comment on matters earlier than September 2019.
This is as it would have been reasonable for any dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach prior to this time to have been pursued through the landlord’s complaints procedure and brought to this Service for investigation.
This Service has noted that the resident did raise a number of complaints in 2015 /2016 regarding her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response, and that she was subsequently issued with complaint responses. As per paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme (set out above) however, if she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s position at this time, this should have been brought to the Ombudsman within 12 months of receiving its response.
Therefore, this investigation has only considered the events which took place up to six months prior to the resident raising her complaint in March 2020. As per paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the ombudsman will not investigate matters which were not brought to the landlord’s attention more than six months after the matter occurring.
Moreover, although the resident also made reports of drugs being used, sold, and smelt in the communal area, the Ombudsman has not considered the landlord’s response to this matter within this report. This is as complaints about how the landlord had responded to these reports were being considered separately, and it is unclear whether the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As such, if the resident wishes to pursue this matter, she will need to ensure that her complaint has been dealt with at both stages of the landlord’s process. She may then bring her complaint back to this Service for investigation, providing it meets this Service’s criteria.
Finally, the resident has suggested that as a result of the landlord’s management of her complaints, her husband developed a heart condition and she suffered from anxiety attacks. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s assertion, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s handling of matters and the deterioration of the resident’s / resident’s husband’s health. Therefore, while the Ombudsman has taken this into consideration for context, no finding has been made in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

Summary of events

On 18 November 2019 the resident reported continued noise disturbances from the property above. She reminded the landlord that she had raised this matter a few years prior, and that the neighbour had agreed to stop their activity, however this had started again. She asserted that this was impacting her / her husband’s health.
It is unclear whether there was any correspondence from the landlord towards the end of 2019. On 6 January 2020 the landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Case Manager (CM) wrote to the resident, however, advising her of counter allegations made by her neighbour. The CM advised that as mediation had already taken place in the past, she would make contact with the legal team to establish what other options could be explored.
The resident challenged the neighbour’s counter allegations and made several reports of banging on the ceiling, heavy running and stomping throughout January and February 2020. She requested that the landlord install “proper noise insulation” in the property above.
This Service can see that there was frequent communication between the CM and resident in February and March 2020. At this time the resident was directed to the local authority’s Noise Abatement Team who, she was advised, would investigate the matter on her behalf. She was also advised that contact would be made with the neighbour to remind them to be mindful of the noise.
The resident challenged this on 26 March 2020, however, asserting that she believed that it was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve the issue. She advised that she would not engage in mediation again and reiterated that the flat above needed soundproofing. She requested that the landlord consider her dissatisfaction under its complaints process.
On 16 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord’s Complaints Team. She explained:
1. She had been complaining about the noise for over five years. There was constant stomping and running, and this took place on an hourly basis. She asserted that the noise started very early in the morning and finished at about 23:00.
2. She had been advised to speak with various different parties and departments, and no ground had been made.
3. She had now been referred to the local authority, but the landlord had taken no responsibility for its tenants.

The resident requested that the landlord consider her matter and provide details of its regulator so that she could consider escalating the matter.

The resident followed this up with further correspondence on 28 April 2020. She expressed dissatisfaction that she had not received a response, that the noise continued, and with the previous advice given by the CM.
On the same day the CM responded to the resident. She advised that she had met with the neighbour and understood the issue to relate to household noise. The resident was asked to provide recordings of the noise experienced and advised that her neighbour would be contacted again. It was explained that the local authority could assess whether the household noise was above the normal level.
In back-and-forth correspondence between the CM and resident, the resident continued to challenge the recommendation that she contact the local authority. The resident also requested evidence that the building had been adequately soundproofed following the CM’s suggestion that this had been confirmed. It was subsequently advised that a surveyor would re-inspect the sound proofing, and that a visit would be undertaken by the CM, along with another colleague, once the national lockdown had been lifted. The neighbour above had been reminded to be mindful of the noise in the meantime.
On 29 April 2020 the CM encouraged the resident to download the Noise App and to share any recordings made. She was advised that the local authority’s noise team could also distinguish between noise nuisance and ASB.
In response, on the same day, the resident advised that she had reviewed the local authority’s website and noted that it would not be able to help if the property was not properly insulated, which she did not believe it was. She therefore reasserted that the matter was the landlord’s responsibility to address. The resident also reminded the CM that she had previously used the noise app and mediation, and that this had not improved her situation.
On 5 May 2020 the resident wrote to the CM explaining that she had attempted to use the noise app since their previous conversation, but found that it was not user friendly, and that when she attempted to record her neighbour, the noise stopped. She reported that there had been banging that morning since 06:00 but that this was something she also could not record.
The CM confirmed later that day that she had listened to the recordings which had been shared and that no noise could be heard. She was encouraged to record all noise including that made at 06:00 where possible.
The resident made further reports of noise on 8 and 15 June 2020 and with no response, chased the landlord on 29 June 2020. She questioned at this time whether the landlord could arrange a visit to her property to witness the noise. She advised that if the CM was unable to address this, the Complaints Team needed to provide a reference number for her complaint.
While the CM had proposed to undertake a visit on 7 July 2020, she confirmed with the resident on 1 July 2020 that she was no longer able to. The resident was advised that staff were awaiting guidance on entering properties and that an update would be provided if anything changed in the following week. The resident was therefore encouraged to continue to record the noises experienced so that this could be assessed. The resident was also advised to call or email the contact centre in order for her complaints to be logged.
In response, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the visit would not take place. She requested that the CM stop suggesting that she record the noise, stating that this had not always been possible. She reiterated that she would not be engaging in mediation again or making further recordings.
On 20 August 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that an operative had visited her property in the day and had not been wearing the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). She explained that she did not want a screen installed that would spoil her light.
It appears that there was some engagement between the resident and Property Manager (PM) between August and November 2020, however this Service has not been provided with a copy of this.
On 26 November 2020 the PM wrote to the resident addressing her concerns with the installation of the privacy screen. He explained:
1. Access was required for its contractor to install a privacy screen on her balcony. An attempt was made to arrange for this to take place on 27 November 2020 but the resident remained unsure about why these works needed to be carried out. He noted, however, that the resident had met with the surveyor in August 2020 and that an email had also been sent on 16 November 2020 outlining what would take place and why.
2. As he had previously (allegedly) mentioned, this screen should have been installed when the property was developed and before the resident moved in. The resident’s neighbour had identified this and had since demanded that this be installed which it was legally obliged to do, given that it was in the original plans.
3. The resident would be advised on the final appearance and how it would be fitted once the designs had been put together.
The resident was advised to make urgent contact with the landlord’s contractor to arrange an appointment.
In response, on 28 November 2020, the resident advised that she wished to raise a complaint about how this matter had been handled. She stated:
1. The landlord’s operative visited the property without the proper PPE while the COVID-19 rate was high. He examined and measured the balcony, and then left the property. There was no communication about this inspection.
2. She had clearly explained that she did not want a privacy screen. There were several other matters in the property which remained outstanding, and which should have been raised before the privacy screen. It was also never mentioned that this was being done in favour of her neighbour.
3. She would not allow the screen to be fitted to the balcony. The property already received minimal light and the screen would reduce this further.
The resident made a report of noise in late November 2020. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had still done nothing and that the matter had still not been escalated through its complaints process.
Between 8 and 11 January 2021, on receiving contact from the landlord of counter-allegations, the resident made further reports of noise nuisance. She stated that she had redownloaded the Noise App but considered this to be pointless. She made several reports to the CM via email. She was advised that this needed to be made to the customer service centre.
On 11 January 2021 the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the CM had refused to visit her property to witness the noise, but had sent a surveyor in August 2020 for the purposes of the privacy screen. She felt that the CM had not been dealing with her matter properly and requested information for her line manager, the complaints team, and the managing director. The resident also questioned why she had been told that her case was closed, why her noise recordings since the previous summer had still not been reviewed, and why no contact had been made about them.
On 13 January 2021 the CM responded to the resident. She stated:
1. In her correspondence in July 2020, she advised the resident that due to the pandemic and internal guidelines, she would be unable to visit her property. The surveyor that visited could have had a different instruction in regard to COVID-19, however.
2. The case was closed as:
  1. The noise app was installed, and recordings reviewed. The resident was advised that the only noise that could be heard was from banging inside the same room.
  2. Mediation had previously been arranged.
  3. It was confirmed by the maintenance department that the property had been checked (historically) and the soundproofing in the building met the building regulations.
  4. A visit was undertaken to the neighbour above by a surveyor and a second member of staff. It was confirmed that the neighbour had carpet, undelay, and rugs, and were not in breach of tenancy.
  5. The noise was considered to be household noise. As a homeowner, the resident was advised to contact the local authority to undertake an investigation, the details of which would have been retrieved.
  6. If further recordings had been provided, a case would have been opened and allocated to a member of staff.
  7. The resident was emailed on several occasions to advise her to log her reports via the correct channels – the contact centre.
On 30 January 2021 the resident wrote to the Complaints Team. She stated:
1. She had been reporting the noise nuisance experienced since 2014 and had written almost a thousand emails with no progress made.
2. As the CM had been incapable of appropriately resolving the matter, she sought a meeting with the Managing Director. She stated she was fed up with the unprofessionalism and needed to escalate the matter higher.
The resident requested that the landlord let her know in writing if it was unable to deal with the issue. If not, she would seek the support of her MP, a court, or the regulator.
The resident was advised on 1 February 2021 that a case had been raised with the Casework Team and a response would be provided in the next few days.
It appears that on 8 and 9 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to remind her that she needed to provide access to her property for the privacy screens to be installed. This Service has not had sight of this correspondence. Internal notes also suggest that the landlord spoke with the resident in relation to her complaint about PPE and assured her that a mask would be worn during future visits.
On 10 February 2021 the resident complained that she did not appreciate the threatening tone of the landlord’s letters. She questioned:
1. Why the issue had been raised, why she had not been contacted about it, and why the landlord’s surveyor had attended to undertake an inspection without any explanation.
2. Where in the lease it gave the landlord permission to access and alter her balcony without her permission or a reasonable explanation.
3. Why the property directly in front of hers did not have a privacy screen.
4. How the screen would look and how much light it would prevent from coming into the flat.
The resident expressed that she did not appreciate the landlord giving her a deadline during the pandemic, particularly as several of her queries had been postponed due to the pandemic previously. She reiterated that the landlord’s previous operative had not worn the appropriate PPE and she did not want to put her household at risk. The resident asserted that she would not be in this mess if the landlord had not provided false information during the sales process.
Following back and forth correspondence to arrange a call, the landlord spoke to the resident on 17 February 2021. At this time, the resident was advised that someone would attend her property, when restrictions had eased, to witness the noise.
This Service can see that on 16 March 2021 the local authority’s Planning Enforcement Department chased the landlord to ensure that the privacy screens were installed. It noted that failure to do so could result in an enforcement notice being served.
On 17 March 2021 the PM responded, in relation to the privacy screen. He explained:
1. The landlord had been contacted by the residents of the property which the balcony overlooked. Following this, it made contact with the resident to explain the purpose of the visit and to schedule an appointment which was accepted. This was undertaken on 20 August 2020.
2. The privacy screen had not been previously installed. This was believed to be the result of human error but a subsequent internal investigation showed that this was required.
3. Point 3.D of the lease agreement (page 19) explained that the resident did not own the structural parts of the balcony which, for the avoidance of doubt, included the balcony’s railings and or walls.
4. A privacy screen was not required for the property opposite her.
5. The landlord’s contractor would attend to measure the balcony, providing a set of drawings which would be reviewed and forwarded to the resident along with any necessary assessments.
6. The balcony remained the landlord’s responsibility. The PM therefore politely requested cooperation in arranging the works. He understood the resident’s concerns, and was happy to assist and arrange the survey at a time that suited the resident, with any person visiting complying with the Public Health England guidance and appropriate PPE.
The PM explained to the resident that the landlord was at risk of an enforcement notice if works were not undertaken and advised the resident to contact the contractor by 29 March 2021 to arrange an appointment. He explained that legal action would be taken if this had not taken place. He noted that a complaint had already been logged for this matter.
On 19 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to complain that she felt harassed by the PM. She explained that she had not refused entry but advised that she did not want any contractor in her property while the COVID-19 infection rate was still high.
The landlord advised the resident, on 23 March 2021, that it would seek to reach an outcome by 1 April 2021 with regards to this complaint.
On 7 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with a stage one response. It apologised for the delay and explained:
1. It was liaising with the Building Services Team to obtain pictures and specifications of the proposed privacy glass. Once this information was obtained, contact would be made to arrange the installation. The resident was assured that the contractors would be working in line with the current guidelines.
2. It was not the property managers intention to harass her, but to confirm an appointment date for installation in order to ensure compliance with the building specification. The local authority had sought an update on the matter.
3. The resident was called by the PM on 5 February 2021 and her complaint about the surveyor’s PPE was discussed. She was advised at this time that a mask would be worn for any future visits.
On 29 April 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that on 16 April 2021 her double-glazed window exploded without reason. She asserted that she could have been seriously injured or died. As a leaseholder, she was advised that she needed to arrange for an operative to come out herself, but now expressed concern about how secure the building was. She stated she would seek to establish how this could happen.
On 7 May 2021 the resident wrote to the CM seeking an update on the steps that had been taken to resolve the noise over the previous year and a half. She expressed dissatisfaction that she had been ignored by the Complaints Team and requested that the CM close her case and refer her to the Ombudsman Service if she could not help.
In response, the CM advised that upon speaking with her manager, she could visit the resident’s property on 18 May 2021 to witness the noise. She would attend with a colleague so that the colleague could move around in the upstairs flat while she witnessed this from below. The resident was advised that she needed to put her complaints through the right channels, and it was reiterated that as it stood, the issue was that the noise was considered to be household noise.
On 12 May 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord’s Chief Executive with a complaint. She stated:
1. Before purchasing her property, she had been advised by the Sales Adviser that this was located on the top floor. Upon moving in, however, it was found that this was not the case. She stated that due to this misrepresentation, her life had become a “living hell”. She had discussed this with staff in 2015 and only apologies were offered.
2. She had been writing and contacting the landlord since 2015 about the noise from the above property. Sound recording equipment had been installed and mediation had taken place, however nothing worked. She stated that she had provided thousands of sample recordings also.
3. Following a phone call from the landlord in August 2020, it inspected her balcony. This was done without the appropriate PPE in the middle of the pandemic, however. This was additionally followed by harassment for her to arrange for an engineer to install a privacy screen that it had forgotten to do seven years prior. She stated that on reviewing the original plan, there were several properties which were missing privacy screens.
4. Her double–glazed window on her balcony had also exploded unprovoked. The surveyor that inspected this confirmed that this was rare, but was that this was the result of the building’s movement. She stated that the only reason the building would move was because of the neighbours above. She believed that the debris from the window might have killed her if she was sat next to it.
The resident therefore requested a solution. She noted that her property was now up for sale, but she would be willing to sell this back to the landlord and to be compensated for the losses she had experienced over the seven years.
On 18 May 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and confirmed that a response would be issued by 2 June 2021. In further discussion with the resident, it was also agreed that the visit to her property would be undertaken on 27 May 2021.
This was undertaken and the CM’s internal notes indicate that she again confirmed the noise being experienced to be household noise. She noted that the noise did seem to be throughout the building as a dog could be heard barking from two flats away but sounded as though it was in the same room.
On or around this time, the landlord noted internally that upon seeking to obtain the costing for the privacy screen, it transpired that there were 25+ balconies which also required the screen. It was noted that enforcement action could not be taken if other residents had not received the same communication.
A note from the landlord’s surveyor also recorded that it was extremely unlikely that the resident’s window smashed as a result of the building’s movement.
On 1 June 2021 the landlord provided the resident with a stage one response to her complaint. It advised:
1. In respect of the allegation that she had not been advised of the flat above, this matter was well outside of the timeframe for a complaint investigation.
2. In relation to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, it noted that mediation had been attempted and apologised that this had not resulted in an improvement. The evidence provided, however, had not demonstrated household noise which was above the usual transference level. It noted that the CM had been in regular contact, nonetheless, and would be making contact to visit and discuss the case in more detail. The resident was reminded that for any enforcement action to be taken, reports needed to be supported by evidence.
3. The resident’s complaint about its surveyor visiting without PPE had already been handled in a separate complaint. The resident was contacted and a resolution was reached. The resident’s concerns were upheld and lessons learned for future situations.
4. It understood that a number of privacy screens across the site had not been installed as per the original building specification, but it had a duty to adhered to this. A management team had therefore been set up to facilitate this work and ensure residents were involved and their concerns handled constructively.
5. It apologised that the resident’s window shattered. It noted that as a leaseholder, the resident was responsible for this, but recognised that this was a serious matter and would have caused some distress.

While the landlord acknowledged that the resident sought compensation, it explained that it had not found sufficient grounds to warrant this.

The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response on the same day. She stated:
1. Due to the misinformation given at the point of sale, she had been affected enormously, and so believed that the landlord needed to consider this aspect of her complaint. Noise had been coming from the above flat for seven years and this was an ongoing case which was never resolved. She stated that if the sales manager had been honest at the time, this would not have happened as she would not have agreed to purchase the middle flat.
2. She acknowledged that the CM had been in contact, but reiterated that she had been suffering with noise for seven years.
3. In relation to the installation of a privacy screen, she suggested that there was already minimal light in the property and installing a screen would reduce this further. She requested that the landlord arrange for an independent surveyor to assess how the screen would impact the level of light in the property.
4. The window fitters had advised that the window had shattered as a result of building movement. She attributed this to the movement of the residents in the property above and advised that in the future, a member of staff needed to attend when reports of shaking were made.
The resident subsequently requested that the landlord buy back the property, and offer compensation for failing to deliver its service. She requested that the landlord escalate the complaint.
Later on the same day, the CM advised the resident that she would liaise with the landlord’s Technical Services in order to have the sound insulation tested and any remedial works undertaken. It was confirmed, following dialogue with the resident, that this would take place on 8 June 2021.
On 3 June 2021 the resident’s stage two complaint escalation request was acknowledged. The resident was advised that due to delays experienced, a response could take a little longer, however if this were to occur, the landlord would write to her.
On 19 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to establish whether any progress was being made as she stated there had been constant stomps since the early morning. The CM advised the resident in response that it would book another appointment to visit the building. A surveyor would also be contacted whilst on site to establish what could be done about the sound.
Several emails were sent around this time to arrange for the landlord’s technical inspector and another member of staff to attend.
On 25 June 2021 the landlord thanked the resident for her continued patience while it dealt with her complaint and apologised that it had not resolved this matter yet. It explained that it would be in touch.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 5 July 2021. She highlighted that she did not find it fair that she had to wait further, without being provided with a timeframe. She was advised, in reply, that as it was dealing with high volumes of complaints, it could not offer a timescale. The resident was advised that she could contact this Service to prompt a response, however.
Notes suggest that a surveyor attended the resident’s property on 31 July 2021 and checked the foundations of the property. It was explained to the resident that the insulation of the building and foundations met all regulations. On 9 August 2021, the CM and a second member of staff also seemingly undertook an inspection. It was explained that the noise was not ASB but household noise.
On 10 September 2021 the landlord provided the resident with its final response. It explained:
1. In accordance with its complaint handling policy, it did not review matters older than six months. It therefore reiterated that any matters relating to the purchase of the property in 2014 was outside of the scope of the complaint. The landlord noted, in any case, that a complaint had been raised in relation to this in 2015 and a decision provided.
2. In relation to the alleged ASB, evidence needed to be provided if it were to take any formal action. It advised that the CM was committed to dealing with any reports made and would continue to monitor the situation.
3. The installation of the privacy screen was essential to it being compliant with the building design. It noted it could consider the impact that this would have on her lighting, however there was no requirement for this to be done as the works had already been authorised in the original building design agreement. An investigation was being undertaken, however, into how this building was handed over without all agreed terms and building specifications being complied with.
4. The landlord stated that the Aftercare Special Project Team would be completing an assessment of the building and would contact the resident to investigate her suggestion that the window shattered due to building movement in greater detail.
The landlord subsequently advised that the resident’s complaint would be closed. It acknowledged that it had delayed in offering a stage two response, however, and advised that an award of £150 would therefore be made.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s assertion that she was given incorrect information during the property purchase process.

Within the landlord’s complaints policy, it explains that the landlord will not accept complaints about “issues which are over 6 months old unless there are exceptional circumstances”.
It was therefore not unreasonable that the landlord took the decision not to investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint. While the Ombudsman notes the resident’s suggestion that this was the catalyst for a series of problems, this Service would not expect a landlord to investigate a matter which occurred more than six years prior.
This is as the Ombudsman recognises that as matters become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult to rely on the availability and accuracy of records to establish what did or did not take place. A landlord may also decide not to maintain / retain records for an extensive period of time.
What’s more, while a landlord may exercise its discretion, this Service would not expect it to re-investigate matters which it has already decided on (via its complaints process). It is noted that the resident had already complained about this matter in 2015, and a complaint response already provided. As such, this Service cannot see that the landlord was required to offer a further complaint response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, if the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response in 2015 / 2016, it would have been reasonable to have confirmed with the landlord that she had exhausted its process and to have brought her complaint to this Service for investigation.
This Service is therefore unable to see that there was any maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter. As per the complaints policy, the landlord explained the reason why it declined to consider the matter within its complaint response and highlighted the relevant section of its policy to support its approach. This was appropriate.

The landlord’s decision to install a privacy screen on the balcony and its approach to this matter.

While the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to install a privacy screen on the balcony, this Service has found that it was not unreasonable for it to do so. On reviewing the lease, it has been confirmed that the premises owned by the resident did not include “any structural part of the balcony including, for the avoidance of doubt, the balcony’s railings and/or walls, the airspace (i) directly above the balcony above the height of the ceiling of the premises, and (ii) directly below the balcony”. As this was also at no cost to the resident, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord was required to consult the resident on its decision. The resident was signposted to the relevant section of the lease.
With regards to its approach, where communication was concerned, it is unclear when the landlord first informed the resident of its intention to install a privacy screen, and whether this was prior to its surveyor turning up at the resident’s property in August 2020. This Service has also been unable to confirm, despite the landlord’s suggestion in correspondence in November 2020, that it had spoken with the resident and explained why access would be required. No record of this or the landlord’s alleged letter on 16 November 2020 has been shared with this Service.
This Service can see, however, that on 26 November 2020, the landlord offered a reasonable explanation as to why this work needed to be completed. As the resident expressed that this was not something that she wanted installed, it was appropriate that the landlord explained that the privacy screen should have been included in the original development of the property and that this needed to be done in order to comply with the original plans. It was appropriate that the landlord explained its legal obligation to put matters into perspective.
This Service appreciates that following a series of letters from the landlord in which it advised it would pursue legal action against the resident, the resident became dissatisfied with the tone of the letters. This was understandable considering that the resident had advised that she first had several reservations about how this would impact her property and had been given little opportunity to discuss this.
It is common practice, however, for landlords to advise residents of the legal routes available to them where works are required and where a resident has refused to provide access. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord done this here, and has not considered this to be inappropriate, particularly given that the local authority’s Planning Enforcement Department had been chasing the landlord to complete this work. The Ombudsman can see that the resident was made aware of this in the landlord’s complaint response.
It was reasonable, still, that as the resident expressed that she felt harassed by these letters, that the landlord provided her with reassurance that it was not its intention. This Service can see that the landlord explained that it sought to work with the resident to arrange an installation date.
It was also reasonable that upon discovering that several other properties required the installation of the privacy screens, the landlord employed a less heavy-handed approach. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord recognised internally that it would be unfair to pursue legal action against the resident without having taken a similar approach for other residents.
It is worth noting, however, that the resident had raised at an earlier time that several other properties were missing privacy screens, and had the landlord followed this up and confirmed this for itself at this time, a larger, more coordinated approach could have been employed which would have avoided the resident feeling singled out.
This Service notes that the resident was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach as she stated that upon inspecting her balcony, the landlord’s operative had failed to wear the appropriate PPE.
As per government guidance and the landlord’s safeguarding responsibilities, the landlord was expected to have ensured that all of its operatives wore PPE when visiting resident homes. It did not dispute the resident’s assertion that on the occasion in question (in August 2020), this did not take place.
While this was inappropriate and would have put the resident and her husband at risk, the Ombudsman has deduced from the evidence provided that the landlord called the resident in early February 2021 and provided the resident with assurance that a face mask would be worn during all future visits to her property. This was reasonable and proportionate.
What’s more, as the resident continued to express concern about this event, it was reasonable that the landlord reiterated in its correspondence on 17 March 2021 and 7 April 2021 that the appropriate PPE would be worn in line with Public Health England guidance. Consideration of guidance from this period shows that the landlord was able to access properties if the appropriate PPE was worn.
Finally, as the resident expressed concerns for the appearance and impact that the screen would have on her property, it was reasonable that she was informed (in both November 2020 and March 2021) that she would be advised of the final appearance and how it would be fitted once the designs were complete (although this Service is unable to confirm whether the landlord did this).
While the landlord was not required to consider whether the installation would result in any reduction in natural light, as the work had already been signed off, it might have been appropriate – given the resident’s concern – for it to have agreed to assess the likely impact. It offered assurance, nonetheless, that resident concerns would be handled constructively, and resident’s given the opportunity to be more involved, following the creation of a special project oversight team.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that a window had smashed at her property.

The Ombudsman has noted that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her report that her window had smashed. On review of the landlord’s approach, however, this Service has been unable to see that there was any maladministration.
Within the lease, it explains that the resident’s premises (for which she is responsible) includes “the inside and outside of the windows and other lights and the frames, glass, equipment and fitments relating to windows and lights of the premises”. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord advised the resident that she needed to arrange for the window to be replaced and inspected for herself, in accordance with her lease.
While the resident subsequently reported that she had arranged an inspection and had been advised that this had been caused by the building’s movement, she did not provide the landlord or this Service with a copy of the window fitter’s report. There was therefore no evidence that this was the cause, or that it could be attributed to the behaviour of the residents above her. This Service can see that the landlord’s surveyor disputed (internally) that such an issue could occur in this way.
In any case, it was reasonable that given the resident’s concerns, the landlord advised that it would make contact with the resident to investigate this matter in greater detail. This was a fair response and ensure that any preventative action required could be pursued. This Service cannot see that the landlord could have done more in response to the resident’s report, and therefore has identified no failures in its approach.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Where noise nuisance is concerned, the landlord’s ASB policy and website explains that it will not usually consider noise caused by “people going about their daily lives”, footsteps, children playing, and other general living sounds to be ASB. While it would consider taking steps if matters were persistent and took place between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00, residents would need to demonstrate that this had been taking place continuously over a period of time. It explains that in the first instance a recommendation would be made for the resident to talk to the neighbour causing the noise to prevent this behaviour.
It was therefore reasonable that upon receiving the resident’s noise reports, the landlord sought to explore how best to approach the resident’s situation, given that the resident had already attempted to resolve this with her neighbour (via mediation) without success. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord would not usually consider neighbour disputes under its ASB process.
It was reasonable that the landlord advised the resident to make contact with the local authorities Noise Abatement Team, so that the level of noise could be assessed. While the resident refused to do so, this would have been an appropriate way to establish whether the noise was indeed household noise and whether it was considered loud enough to constitute a statutory nuisance. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it is the responsibility of a local authority to investigate complaints about noise which unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home. The local authority’s findings would have assisted the landlord in taking further steps to address the noise.
This, however, did not absolve the landlord of its own responsibility to consider the type of noise the resident was experiencing for itself and how this was impacting her. In doing so, the landlord would have been able to determine whether the nuisance was deliberate and targeted (and therefore an ASB matter) or household noise.
It was reasonable that the landlord made contact with the resident’s neighbour on receiving reports in January, February, and March 2020 of banging, heavy running / playing, and stomping, to advise them to be mindful of the noise. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord advised the resident that it had taken this action.
While this Service has seen few reports in April 2020, it is noted that the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour’s property, confirming that there was underlay, rugs, and carpet, and understood at this time that the issue related to household noise. It was therefore reasonable, that the landlord requested that the resident provide noise recordings of the noise experienced, to enable it to assess the noise for itself. It was appropriate that it encouraged the resident to make use of the Noise App in order to do so. The Ombudsman notes that on reviewing the recordings provided by the resident, the landlord was unable to hear any significant noises from outside of the property.
Given the resident’s reports that she had not found the app to be user friendly, and that often the noise had stopped when she attempted to make a recording, it was reasonable that the landlord agreed to visit the resident’s property to witness the noise. This Service appreciates that landlords had reduced their services to essential repairs at this time, and therefore it was not unreasonable that this visit had to be postponed.
It is noted that as early as February 2020, the resident also requested that the landlord undertake works to improve the sound insulation of the building which she alleged was inadequate. In the absence of sufficient evidence of noise, however, this Service accepts that the landlord would not have undertaken such intrusive works to assess this initially.
The Ombudsman can see that in the first instance, the CM consulted the appropriate department to confirm that the soundproofing was believed to be adequate. This was proportionate. As she was unable to demonstrate this for the resident, however, it was reasonable that she agreed to arrange for this to be inspected once the national lockdown had been lifted.
In light of this agreement, once restrictions had relaxed in August 2020, it would have therefore been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident to establish whether she was still experiencing the noise issues and whether a visit was still required. At this time, it also could have arranged to undertake an inspection of the sound insulation, as it said it would. While the landlord was able to arrange for a surveyor to assess the property during this time to undertake an inspection for the privacy screen, no action was taken with respect of the noise issue. This was unreasonable.
As it appears that the resident made no further reports of noise between July 2020 and November 2020, the landlord would have likely assumed that the issue had subsided. Additionally, given that the resident had also suggested in July 2020 that she would not be making further recordings or engaging in mediation, there would have been few steps that the landlord could take. It appears that on or around this time, the landlord subsequently closed the resident’s case.
On receiving further reports of noise in November 2020 and January 2021, however, the landlord should have been proactive in arranging the visits previously promised to the resident. The Ombudsman can see that the resident highlighted her dissatisfaction that no visit had taken place in her correspondence on 11 January 2021 and that the landlord assured the resident, on the following month, that someone would still attend to witness the noise. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not seek to arrange a date in which this could take place, until 7 May 2021, after being further prompted by the resident. This Service is aware that the government guidance in early 2021 advised that landlords could undertake routine works and inspections at resident properties, provided that these were in line with Public Health advice. The Ombudsman therefore has not considered this to be a sufficient excuse for the landlord’s delay.
Records confirm that the landlord visited the resident’s property on 27 May 2021 during which time, it was unable to access the neighbour’s property. It confirmed nonetheless that noises could be heard throughout the building. As such it was reasonable that arrangements were made with the technical inspector for the sound insulation to be inspected. This took place on 31 July 2021 and the landlord was able to confirm for itself and the resident that this was in line with the required regulations. Notes suggest that the landlord also undertook a further inspection again confirming that the resident was experiencing household noise.
While the Ombudsman is subsequently satisfied that the landlord did take adequate steps to understand the noise experienced by the resident and accepts that it would not have been able to do more to address the household noise, it should have been more proactive and acted with greater urgency to demonstrate to the resident that her matter was being taken seriously. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord should have arranged to witness the noise for itself at an early time and to confirm for all parties that the sound insulation was appropriate. The resident subsequently may have considered an alternative resolution sooner, and this also may have reduced the time and inconvenience in pursuing this matter. It also might have been reasonable for the landlord to have referred this matter to the local authority, on the resident’s behalf, to establish whether there was a statutory nuisance.
It was reasonable that in the landlord’s final complaint responses, it advised the resident that the CM would continue to work with her to monitor the situation and offered assurance that she was dedicated to dealing with any further reports. It would have also been further appropriate, however, for the landlord to have made an award of compensation to recognise its failure to be proactive.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it recognises a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by [the landlord], [its] colleagues, or those acting on [its] behalf”. While the policy indicates that complaints made directly to a colleague in person will be accepted and is silent on complaints made to colleagues via email, this Service would expect the landlord to consider these too.
It was therefore unacceptable that upon raising her dissatisfaction with the CM in March 2020, the resident’s complaint was not considered under the landlord’s complaints process, despite her specific request. The Ombudsman can see that following this, the resident wrote directly to the landlord’s Complaints Team setting out the reasons for her complaint in April 2020 and requesting contact, and this still was not responded to.
Though the landlord’s policy suggests that where a complaint is made, a stage one response will be provided within 10 working days, the resident’s several requests for a complaint to be raised were ignored by the landlord in 2020. The Ombudsman can see that where the resident expressed concerned that she had received no response, the CM signposted her to the contact centre rather than forwarding her complaint to the relevant department.
This was inappropriate and contrary to good complaint handling practice. While the landlord was expected to seek a fair outcome for the resident at the earliest opportunity, to attempt to put things right, and learn from outcomes (in line with the dispute resolution principles), it made no attempt to do so.
The resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of reports of noise subsequently went unaddressed until she wrote to the Chief Executive in May 2021, more than a year later. Prior to this time, in 2021, this Service notes that further complaints were also made, one of which the landlord suggested (on 1 February 2021) would be addressed within days.
Equally, this Service can see that the landlord failed to formally address the resident’s complaints relating to the privacy screen. The Ombudsman accepts that between August 2020 and April 2021, the landlord did maintain communication with the resident on this matter, and that several of the resident’s concerns were discussed. As it was clear that many of the resident’s comments were complaints, however, including her correspondence on 28 November 2020 and 10 February 2021, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided a formal response under its complaints process at an earlier time. A formal complaint response was not provided to the resident until 7 April 2021 – almost eight months later.
Where the resident’s dissatisfaction with the operative’s lack of PPE was concerned, there was a clear lack of urgency to address the resident’s comments. While the resident raised her dissatisfaction about the inspection in August 2020 and raised this matter again in her correspondence on 28 November 2020, this Service has been unable to identify any evidence that the landlord responded until February 2021. It is noted that at this time, this was addressed informally and while the landlord’s complaints policy indicates that it will confirm its decision in writing once resolution has been agreed, no written response was provided. This Service notes that in the landlord’s subsequent complaint responses, it instead referred to this matter being resolved via telephone.
As well as being contrary to the landlord’s process, in failing to provide a written response, this Service has been unable to confirm that at minimum, the landlord apologised for its operative’s failure to wear the appropriate PPE. Therefore, while it has been determined above that the landlord offered the resident reasonable reassurance that future operatives would be appropriately equipped, it did not handle the complaint about this issue adequately.
Moreover, the Ombudsman accepts that in this case, as the resident included all of her complaint issues within her correspondence on 12 May 2021, the landlord took the decision to respond to all matters again at stage one. Its response was provided within a reasonable amount of time here.
Despite receiving the resident’s request to escalate matters to stage two on 1 June 2021, however, this Service notes that the landlord failed to offer its final response until more than three months later. The Ombudsman appreciates that within this period, the landlord did explain to the resident that it was experiencing delays and did offer an apology. Contrary to good practice, however, and to the resident’s request, where it acknowledged that it would be unable to meet its 20-working day timescale – as set out in its policy, there was no new expected timeframe offered. It was therefore unable to manage the resident’s expectation.
It was also inappropriate that the landlord advised the resident to contact this Service in order to set a timescale for response on its behalf. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have agreed a reasonable timescale with the resident, on its own accord.
On review of the landlord’s handling of matters as a whole, it is clear to this service that the landlord’s cumulative failures resulted in a significant delay in the resident establishing its position, in being able to go through its process, and in being able to exhaust this so that she could bring her complaint to this Service. Although the landlord recognised in its final response that there was a delay in progressing the resident’s complaint, and offered the resident a compensation award of £150, it failed to acknowledge this. As such, the landlord’s offer of compensation fell short in recognising the extent of its failure and was unsatisfactory in putting things right.
For completeness, the Ombudsman recognises that the resident sought for the landlord to buy her property back, as well as offering compensation, in resolution of her complaint. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord was under any obligation to do so, however. In any case, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord provided the resident with a response to this request. The Ombudsman has not commented on whether the landlord’s response was fair or not as it is noted that this has become the subject of a new complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of issues experienced with her electricity meter falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fly tipping falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s assertion that she was given incorrect information during the property purchase process.
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s decision to install a privacy screen on the balcony and its approach to this matter.
3. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that a window had smashed at her property.
4. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

This Service has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. The landlord’s decision not to consider the resident’s allegations of incorrect information during the property purchase process was appropriate. The Ombudsman is satisfied that its response was reasonable and that it acted in line with its policy.
2. It was not inappropriate for the landlord to seek to install a privacy screen at the resident’s property. This Service is satisfied that the landlord explained why it was doing this and responded fairly to the resident’s comments.

While the landlord’s approach could have been better, particularly with regards to PPE, it did provide the resident with reassurance that future visits would be handled in accordance with the relevant guidance. This was reasonable. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s dissatisfaction with this matter has been commented on under the complaint handling section of this report.

The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord was responsible for the damage to the resident’s window. It was therefore appropriate that it advised her to acquire her own surveyor, given that the window was her responsibility. This Service has seen no evidence that the damage to the window was caused by the resident’s neighbours. It was appropriate, still, that the landlord agreed to investigate the matter, to prevent future issues.
While there would have been few steps that the landlord could have taken to address the household noise, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have undertaken a visit to the resident’s property at an earlier time (both to witness the noise for itself and to assess the insulation). This did not take place until approximately a year after it had originally been scheduled, despite the easing of COVID-19 restrictions at various times. Had the landlord done this sooner, it could have demonstrated to the resident that it was being proactive, confirmed the level of noise being experienced by the resident, and saved the resident from having to continuously chase this matter. The Ombudsman notes that on several occasions, the resident questioned what the landlord had done to date to consider her issue and when a visit would take place.
There was a significant failure in the landlord’s approach to complaint handling in this case. As well as failing to recognise several of the resident’s complaints, the landlord also failed, where it eventually took steps to consider her dissatisfaction under its process, to offer its responses in good time. This was inappropriate. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the landlord made an offer of compensation but has determined that this was insufficient in recognising the extent of its failure and the inconvenience / distress caused to the resident.

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, the landlord should award the resident £250.
In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord should award the resident £500.
The landlord should ensure that the above payments are made within four weeks of receiving this determination. This should be made on top of the £150 already offered.
Given the complaint handling failures in this case, the landlord should also take steps (in the form of a refresher course or workshop, based on the contents of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code) to remind its staff of their complaint handling responsibilities, what this Service might expect to see, and the best practice approaches. The landlord should confirm that it will be doing this within four weeks too.