Notting Hill Genesis (202011089)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011089

Notting Hill Genesis

30 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the managing agent’s handling of the resident’s concerns, following alterations undertaken at his neighbour’s property, and the landlord’s response on bringing this matter to its attention.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a one-bedroom flat.
  2. The neighbour referred to in this report is also a leaseholder.
  3. The resident’s building is overseen by a Managing Agent (MA) who has been instructed by the landlord under the terms of a management agreement. This Service has had the benefit of reviewing the agreement signed in December 2012.

Summary of events

  1. On 30 June 2020 the MA provided the resident’s neighbour with consent to alter their flooring. Works subsequently took place in which the flooring and insulation at the neighbour’s property were altered.
  2. On 28 September 2020 the resident reported experiencing noise from the neighbour’s property. The Ombudsman has not had sight of the resident’s initial complaint, however the landlord’s notes suggest that this was associated with the renovation works which had been undertaken.
  3. On 30 September 2020 the MA wrote to the resident following a visit to his property.               It noted that it had visited his neighbour and could confirm that works had been undertaken but completed. It therefore foresaw no further disturbances but advised that it would monitor the situation and if this persisted, would escalate the matter.
  4. It is unclear what the MA and resident discussed during the visit to his property. Later, on the same day, however, the resident highlighted that his questions remained unanswered. He highlighted his concerns relating to the lease requirement to acquire consent for an alteration, and the landlord’s duty to approve this on the basis that the sound insulation standards were met. The resident questioned whether the MA had liaised with the landlord about a potential breach of lease. This Service can see that he was advised in response (still on 30 September 2020) that an investigation was being undertaken in relation to the issue of consent, and an update would be provided.
  5. On 15 October 2020 the resident advised the MA that he had reported thumping music to the concierge and attempted to speak with the neighbour about the noise he was experiencing (without success). He advised that this was a nuisance which needed to be treated as a breach of the neighbour’s lease. He believed that the extensive work undertaken at the neighbour’s property had removed the noise insulation and also asserted that the property was likely being sublet. He requested that the MA share this information with the landlord.
  6. Following an attempted call to the resident, the MA proposed to meet with the resident on 19 October 2020. The MA advised that it had undertaken its enquiries and found that the neighbour’s property had been properly insulated and was not being sublet. It advised that the matter could be discussed during the meeting.
  7. The resident responded on 16 October 2020 confirming his availability for the proposed meeting but expressing that his experience had not supported that insulation was in place. The resident requested technical proof that appropriate insulation had been installed and that the alteration was requested and approved by the landlord. He expressed dissatisfaction that a vague response had been provided and requested details of the type of floor / insulation in place, and who it was approved by. The resident sought to establish how the MA had come to its conclusion, highlighting that this had not been evidenced by the response.
  8. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord’s Property Management Officer (PMO) on the same day. He indicated concerns about the landlord outsourcing a lease issue which its managing agent was not equipped to deal with.
  9. On 19 October 2020 the MA provided the resident with an apology and advised that its intention was to discuss the technicalities of the issue when it met with the resident. It confirmed that answers to the resident’s questions would be put in writing.
  10. On 23 October 2020 the resident wrote to both the MA and the PMO. He requested that the MA register his correspondence as a formal complaint and that it liaise with the landlord to provide a joint response. He expressed that he was not receiving answers to his concerns, and within a reasonable amount of time. He requested a comprehensive response to satisfy his questions and the requirements of the lease.
  11. The resident sent further correspondence on 29 and 30 October 2020 within which he asserted that the noise resulting from the unauthorised flooring was seriously impacting his quality of life. He expressed dissatisfaction with the service from both the landlord and MA and requested that they arrange for this to be investigated as a formal complaint. He asserted that there had been a complete disregard for his request to register a complaint and suggested that this would now be a matter for the PMO to pick up with the MA as a breach of the management agreement. The resident again questioned:

a.     How the MA would test the flooring to establish whether it met the standard, and whether these results would be shared with him or an independent complaints investigator.

b.     Whether the floor and insulation had been inspected by someone independent and technically qualified, or whether this was what the owner was claiming.

c.      Whether permission was granted before or after the alteration.

  1. The MA wrote to the resident on the same day advising that it would be engaging with a surveyor to assess the condition of the floor and the sound proofing, to ensure that the insulation was functioning as it should. It confirmed that permission had been given to install the flooring, and that the original insulation was still in place as well as two additional layers which had been recently added.
  2. On 2 November 2020 the resident expressed dissatisfaction that there had been no acknowledgment of his request to raise a service complaint. He requested that the PMO provide the agreement with the MA which he hoped would also include its complaints policy.
  3. On 3 November 2020 the MA wrote to the resident providing clarity on the steps it had taken to date. It noted:

a.     On 29 September 2020, following the resident’s report of noise, the Facilities Manager inspected the neighbour’s property and was shown a cross section of the insulation in place. Photographic evidence was seen of the layers in place and the specifications of two new layers. The original underlay was still intact.

b.     On 5 October 2020 the Estate Manager met with the neighbour to discuss the noise reported and confirmed that the neighbour was the only person residing at the property.

c.      On 15 October 2020 following the resident’s report of loud music, the concierge attended the neighbour’s property but heard no music. The neighbour subsequently confirmed, via his Ring doorbell footage, that he was not at home at the time.

d.     On 19 October 2020 the Estate Manager re-inspected the neighbour’s flooring and was able to see the insulation in place.

e.     A quote was obtained on 2 November 2020 for an inspection of the neighbour’s flooring / insulation, however due to the cost, a second was being sought.

  1. The MA apologised that the matter had taken some time. It subsequently advised the resident on how he could make a complaint if he wished to, and provided him with the relevant details.
  2. On 3 November 2020 the resident wrote to the PMO. He advised that the MA’s response had been incorrect, there had been significant delays, and a lack of technical responses. He advised that the PMO too was ignoring his request to escalate his complaint.
  3. The PMO responded on the same day noting that it could see that the MA was taking action and would address his issue. The MA had been encouraged to share the complaints procedure, and to copy the PMO in all communication so that it could oversee the matter.
  4. On 12 November 2020 the PMO requested that the resident outline what he expected from the landlord. It noted that this would assist it in understanding his dissatisfaction and providing a satisfactory solution.
  5. While this Service has not seen a record of the conversation, it is noted that the resident spoke with the MA on 14 December 2020 within which the resident was advised that the MA had exhausted its responsibility. The resident was advised that any further investigation would need to be undertaken by himself. The resident subsequently sought to escalate his complaint with the landlord.
  6. On 24 December 2020 the PMO advised the resident that his complaint would not be escalated internally as:

a.     The MA were managing this issue as per their responsibility. The issues raised by the resident had been investigated by them, surveyors had been instructed to attend and review the flooring, and tests had been conducted. Their findings showed that no alterations had been made and no breaches of the lease. The PMO noted that the process had been appropriately managed.

b.     The resident had been advised that he needed to make his complaint via the MA’s process. They would subsequently outline the steps and processes taken to resolve the issue.

c.      No response had been provided following the email on 12 November 2020 and despite a chaser email on 20 November 2020.

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord with a formal complaint response on 26 January 2021. This Service has not been provided with a copy of this complaint.
  2. On 1 February 2021 the PMO provided the resident with a stage one response. The PMO offered a summary of events as well as noting:

a.     On becoming aware of the noise issue on 6 October 2020, this was raised with the MA who confirmed on 13 October 2020 that the neighbour was not in breach of the lease. This was as the neighbour already had hard flooring.

b.     Further contact was received on 16 October 2020 in relation to the ongoing noise issue, the management agreement, outstanding responses, and suspicion that the neighbour’s property was being sublet. It was found that the property was not being sublet and that sound insulation was in place.

c.      Advice was given on 21 October 2020 that an update had been sought on any further steps the MA was taking. The resident was also advised to forward any concerns to the MA as it related to the MA’s service.

d.     The MA confirmed on the same day that it had personally inspected the neighbour’s property, and this was not set up for subletting. The appropriate insulation was also in place which matched the specification for the property.

e.     The resident had made several attempts to raise his complaint with its service and the MA. The PMO noted that the resident had been advised during this time that the MA was in the process of arranging a surveyor.

f.        It had been explained on 12 November 2020 why the complaint needed to be addressed to the MA. Additionally, while the resident was asked to clearly set out his expectations, no response was offered. It noted that on 14 December 2020, the MA advised the resident of the next steps he could take and although he subsequently requested for a complaint to be registered, it stood by the MA’s position that its responsibilities had been exhausted. It agreed to offer a stage one response following further detail from the resident in January 2021.

  1. The PMO concluded that there had been no failure to follow process. It reiterated that the MA were managing the matter whilst it continued to be included in the communication and ensuring that the complaint was correctly managed.
  2. On or around 6 February 2021 the resident raised his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. It appears that this was directed to the wrong mailbox.
  3. On 23 February 2021 the resident reported extremely loud music being turned on and off from his neighbour’s property. He explained that he believed this to be deliberate noise nuisance. The resident provided the landlord with a log of activity between 12 – 23 February 2021 in which he reported heavy footsteps, banging, and thumping music.
  4. On 9 March 2021 the landlord provided the resident with its stage two response. It advised that while it was still awaiting information, it would provide the resident with an interim response. The landlord explained:

a.     In response to the resident’s concerns about how the MA handled his reports of alterations at the neighbour’s property and the lack of evidence to support its finding:

  1. The neighbour had been given consent for a like for like replacement of the wood flooring. Following the resident’s complaint, the flooring was inspected by the MA, and the insulation matched the specification provided. This was confirmed as well as the original underlay being in place. A surveyor was consulted who advised a noise specialist would be best to assess the issue, and quotes were also obtained. These costs were subsequently passed on to the leaseholder, for any further investigation. The landlord advised that this was in line with its process and expectation. It acknowledged, however, that it had not seen the consent form or any details on the new / old flooring specification. It advised that upon receipt of this, it would ask its own surveyor for an opinion on whether the flooring and underlay would be acceptable.

b.     In relation to the MA’s handling of the allegations that the neighbour’s flat was being sublet and the lack of evidence to support its finding:

  1. An agent had visited the property in October 2020 and confronted the neighbour. They were satisfied that no subletting was taking place. The landlord advised that it was satisfied the MA had taken reasonable action to investigate. While there could have been more investigation such as talking to the concierge and spot checks, it was down to the MA’s judgement. Further checks would be recommended, however.

c.      In relation to the MA’s handling of the noise from the neighbour:

  1. It noted that this had not been originally complained about. It acknowledged, however, that a log was being kept and that the evidence showed that an investigation needed to take place. It advised it had raised this with the MA who was taking the matter forward with the resident.

d.     In relation to the PMO’s management of the issues raised and the support offered in resolving the matters with the MA:

  1. While it could see that the communication overtime had become ineffective, the PMO had been trying to assist in resolving the issue and supported a push to resolve matters, as would be expected under a management agent setup. It explained that its role was peripheral. The landlord advised that it was satisfied that the PMO carried out their role correctly but noted that further clarification could have been provided on its relationship with the MA. A complaint could have been logged at an earlier time and it could have done more to ensure the MA logged a complaint on their system too.

e.     In relation to the landlord reviewing the management agreement at the scheme:

  1. It did review this and endeavour to ensure that residents were satisfied with the service. Where there was sufficient evidence that this was not happening, action would be taken. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the MA solely was not enough to take action, however the service would be continually monitored.
  1. The landlord reiterated that it had requested information on the flooring and noise issue and would come back to the resident on 23 March 2021. An award of £150 compensation would therefore be offered for the distress and inconvenience in relation to this matter.
  2. On 13 April 2021, upon reviewing the resident’s correspondence from 6 February 2021 and the information which had not been previously available, the landlord concluded:

a.     It was unclear whether the flooring should have been deemed a like for like change. No clarity had been provided on the type of flooring or underlaying that was put in, and no technical opinion was evident. There was also a lack of clarity on the areas it covered and the installation method. The landlord noted that as consent was given on a like for like basis, there was the potential that a “licence to alter” should have been considered instead. It noted that a technical opinion should have been sought in order to consider the suitability of the flooring. It would subsequently arrange for a technical opinion to be undertaken by 23 April 2021. The surveyor would report back on:

  1. The structure of the building to determine what materials were used between the two flats.
  2. Whether there had been a breach to fire compartmentation works.
  3. The type of flooring in place before and at present, whether these were like for like, and the suitability of the flooring in this type of residential flat. It would also consider where this was in each room.
  4. The type of underlay previously / currently in place, and whether this was suitable for the type of flat.

b.     On reviewing the management agreement between the MA and the landlord, it noted that matters which concerned licences for alterations were excluded from the MA’s responsibilities. The initial request from the neighbour subsequently should have been passed to the landlord, and following the resident’s complaints, investigated.

c.      The landlord noted the resident’s concern that he had been given conflicting answers on when consent was given (whether prospectively or retrospectively). It explained that the advice given to the resident was based on a misunderstanding but was not intended to mislead him. It apologised that the communication had been poor and incorrect.

d.     In relation to the suggestion that the resident cover the cost of a sound inspection, it noted in hindsight that this was not ideal advice given the situation and the resident’s experience. The landlord apologised for this and confirmed that no cost would be attributed to the resident for the survey. It added that it would look at other practical solutions, following the survey.

e.     While it had originally considered the PMO’s involvement to be satisfactory, it was clear that the service as a whole had not acted as expected. It acknowledged that it should have known the setup and obligations (in relation to the landlord and managing agent). It apologised for this and recognised that its communication could have been better given the resident’s frustration and experience, and that it should have logged the resident’s complaint in November 2020 when this was requested. It again noted that it could have done more to ensure that the MA logged his complaints and stated that it would take this forward for future learning.

f.        It noted the resident’s dissatisfaction that his complaint about the PMO’s lack of action, as well as the MAs, was responded to by the PMO. The landlord explained that as the resident’s complaint contained other elements, it was thought best for the PMO to respond. It acknowledged on review, however, that it would have been better for a manager to respond.

g.     The PMO had not actively been trying to obstruct the resident’s complaint. It was also the PMO’s intention to work to how the landlord approached complaints, in asking him to remove the chief executive from the email chains.

h.     While it had previously advised that its role was peripheral, it had since acknowledged that as a matter which was excluded from the managing agents responsibilities, and in light of its other responsibilities under the management agreement, it should have taken ownership of this matter. The landlord highlighted that it was unaware of this, however, as the correct process was not followed. The landlord acknowledged that it had a second opportunity to pick this up when the complaint was made, but did not do this. It had recognised that there had been significant failings and would be recommending a review of the agreement followed by a meeting with the managing agent to ensure there was a full understanding of the obligations and management. It would also recommend that communication was sent to all residents to clarify the setup and obligations.

i.        In relation to the resident’s queries around training and findings for future improvement, its training was continuous and would pick this matter up. The same was expected by the MA. It sought to learn from previous oversights in its service.

  1. The landlord therefore offered the resident a further apology. It advised that along with the £150 previously offered, £250 would be awarded for inconvenience, and £250 for the incorrect information, its handling of the matter, and the distress caused. It reiterated that it would be learning from the findings of the case and would work to resolve the outstanding issue.
  2. This Service can see that while the resident’s neighbour had initially been willing to allow the landlord to undertake inspections, in April 2021 they refused to provide access and insisted that communication be made via their solicitor. The landlord was therefore unable to commission a sound specialist to inspect the flooring / insulation at this time.
  3. This Service understands that the inspection took place on or around April / May 2022. The resident has advised this Service that despite this, he has still not been provided with the findings.

Assessment and findings

The managing agent’s handling of the resident’s concerns, following alterations undertaken at his neighbour’s property, and the landlord’s response on bringing this matter to its attention.

  1. It is clear, as acknowledged by the landlord within its final response, that there were several oversights in the MA’s handling of the resident’s concerns and its own handling of matters, once the issue was brought to its attention. 
  2. Under the management agreement, the MA is responsible for the operation of the property on behalf of the landlord and should take reasonable steps to ensure that its obligations are implemented effectively and to the satisfaction of the landlord. This includes dealing with

“All proper enquiries, reports, complaints, and other correspondence, from lessees, tenants, statutory undertakers, local authorities, solicitors, and other professional representatives, and all other authorities and persons, in connection with matters arising from the day-to-day management of the property”. 

  1. As such, the MA was responsible for addressing the resident’s initial complaints and responding to the several queries he raised. It was inappropriate that it did not do this, nor did it raise the resident’s dissatisfaction with its responses as a formal complaint. This was contrary to this Service’s Complaint Handing Code which encourages landlords (and their representatives) to log, acknowledge, and respond to expressions of dissatisfaction under the complaints procedure.
  2. Despite the resident’s request for a more comprehensive, technical response and a clear indication of whether the correct process had been followed in allowing his neighbour to alter the flooring, this was not forthcoming. While the MA did undertake a number of inspections and confirmed this for the resident, a proper sound assessment should have been undertaken and the subsequent results shared with the resident. This would have enabled the MA to establish whether any further alterations were needed to prevent the ongoing noise nuisance which the resident reported experiencing. Given that the MA had authorised this change, and had been unable to provide evidence that the flooring / insulation met the appropriate requirements, it was unreasonable that it sought to pass the cost of the sound test on to the resident.
  3. While this Service would have expected the MA and landlord to be well versed on their roles and responsibilities under the management agreement, it appears that this was not the case. As a result, it is noted that the MA provided consent for a matter which ultimately fell outside of its responsibilities (and was not flagged by the landlord until several months later). It also offered no evidence that consideration had been given to the concerns raised by the resident when consent was granted in June 2020.
  4. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was inappropriate. A review of the management agreement would have highlighted that the MA was not permitted to independently approve alterations to the property. The agreement sets out that the MA “is not, without first obtaining approval in writing from the [landlord], authorised to make or agree any adjustments…”, and would not be dealing with licences for alterations.
  5. It also appears to this Service that had there been greater consideration of the type of changes the neighbour sought to make, the MA would not have been under the impression that this was like for like. In any case, the MA may have quickly discovered this issue had a proper investigation taken place after the resident raised the matter, and a comprehensive response issued under the complaints process. This would have given it the opportunity to review its earlier actions to assure the resident (and itself) that the correct process was followed.
  6. As the landlord had been included in much of the correspondence between the resident and the MA, and specific requests had been made for the landlord to offer a joint complaint response, it is additionally unclear why the landlord did not intervene and / or encourage the MA to reply formally.
  7. While the landlord is reliant on the MA to discharge its statutory and contractual obligations as representatives, ultimately, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the resident receives a fair service, as it is the landlord who maintains the contractual relationship with the resident under the tenancy agreement.
  8. As such, where the resident highlighted the MA’s failure to register his complaint, this Service would have expected the landlord to have played a more active role in ensuring that the complaint was properly addressed. It is for the landlord to take overall responsibility to ensure that the complaints procedure is accessible and effective. Therefore, while it was appropriate that the landlord requested to be included in all communication with the resident, it also should have ensured that the matter was being dealt with at stage one of the complaints process. 
  9. Moreover, the landlord also should have considered the resident’s comments and the steps taken by the MA. This too would have provided the landlord with the opportunity to consider what had taken place, and potentially to have identified where the MA had gone wrong at an earlier time.
  10. The landlord’s failure to take the resident’s complaint seriously meant that he was not provided with a complaint response until February 2021, despite his attempts to raise this with both the MA and the landlord as early as October 2020. This was inappropriate. It is noted that the resident was provided with incorrect information at this time.
  11. It was also inappropriate that despite that resident raising his dissatisfaction with the service offered from both the MA and the landlord, the landlord continued to signpost the resident back to the MA for consideration under its complaints procedure. The practice of signposting here demonstrated a failure from the landlord to take ownership. At minimum, the landlord could have referred the elements of the resident’s complaint which related to the MA’s service to the MA and encouraged it to respond to the resident on his behalf. Its approach was both inconsistent with the Ombudsman’s expectation that landlords own the relationship with their residents and are proactive in pursuing resolution. It is important to remember the human element of these issues and the immense frustration residents will feel when being passed between organisations.
  12. With the above said, while the landlord failed to fully acknowledge its many oversights and the failures of its MA within its initial complaint responses, this Service can see that it did do so upon undertaking a review on 13 April 2021.
  13. The Ombudsman accepts that in an attempt to provide the resident with a complaint response within a reasonable timescale, an interim stage two letter was issued. The landlord did explain at this time that while it could only issue a response based on the information it had to hand for the time being, a further response would be provided once it had obtained the outstanding information. This was fair.
  14. The landlord later recognised within its further response that it should have addressed the resident’s complaint at an earlier time, offered further support in raising his complaint with the MA, and played a more active role in seeking resolution for the resident (being that its role was not solely peripheral). It was reasonable that the landlord accepted that given the resident had raised a complaint about the PMO, this should have been responded to by another member of staff.
  15. The landlord accepted that there was a lack of clarity and evidence to confirm the specification of the flooring and the adequacy of the insulation. It noted that this did not appear to be a like for like change and that a technical opinion should have been sought.
  16. There was also recognition that licences for alterations were excluded from the MA’s responsibilities and that the resident had been given conflicting information on the matter of consent.
  17. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the steps subsequently proposed by the landlord were proportionate and satisfactory in putting things right. It was reasonable that it proposed to arrange for a noise specialist to inspect the neighbour’s property and to report back, at no cost to the resident.
  18. This Service is conscious that conflicting information can have the effect of eroding confidence in the landlord’s / MA’s ability, and so it was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged this and offered the resident an apology for the poor communication, inconvenience and incorrect information that had been offered. It was appropriate that the landlord advised that a review would take place to ensure that all parties were aware of their responsibilities under the agreement, and that lessons could be learned from the case.
  19. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s offer of £650 compensation, along with its admissions and proposed next steps, therefore fairly reflected the extent of its overall failure. Its response was in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles (to be fair, put things right, and to learn from outcomes).
  20. While the Ombudsman might have considered this sufficient in resolving the complaint, it is noted that despite the landlord’s proposal to undertake the assessment of the neighbour’s property by 23 April 2021, this matter remained outstanding for some time.
  21. Where promises are made in resolution of a complaint, the Ombudsman expects landlords to honour and fulfil the promises, and in good time. The Ombudsman accepts that in this instance, as the neighbour had refused to permit entry for the assessment to take place, this presented some difficulty for the landlord.
  22. In such instances, however, this Service would expect the landlord to maintain communication with the resident to keep him up to date on the reasons for the delay, and to seek to undertake the outstanding assessment at the earliest opportunity. It does not appear that the landlord did this, however.
  23. Moreover, it appears that while there was some communication with the neighbour’s solicitor to arrange for an agreed specialist to undertake the assessment, this was not undertaken until on or around April / May 2022 and the resident has still not been provided with the findings of the inspection. Several of his questions therefore remain outstanding.
  24. Given the events that have taken place, and with consideration of the length of time that passed, this Service has subsequently determined that there was a service failure.
  25. For completeness, this Service is content that the MA undertook appropriate steps to satisfy for itself that the neighbour’s property was not being sublet. As the landlord identified, nonetheless, it could have also arranged for spot checks and information from the concierge to be collected in order to support its conclusion. It was reasonable that it advised that it would recommend this.
  26. This Service is also satisfied that as the resident had not previously complained about the MA’s handling of the noise reports, the landlord did not investigate this at stage two / its review stage. It was reasonable, nonetheless, that it confirmed that the matter had been raised with the MA and steps were being taken to accumulate a log of activity and to ensure that action was being taken moving forward.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has determined that there was a service failure in respect of the managing agent’s handling of the resident’s concerns, following alterations undertaken at his neighbour’s property, and the landlord’s response on bringing this matter to its attention. 

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman is content that while there were several matters which the landlord and the MA should have dealt with differently, there was a reasonable acknowledgement of the omissions within the review response and the landlord subsequently took steps to put things right. As well as its offer of compensation, its apologies, and the areas identified for learnings, its proposal to undertake an inspection on the following month would have enabled it to confirm for the resident whether the flooring / insulation met the required standard or whether any further alterations were needed. If the neighbour’s flooring / insulation was found to be appropriate, this would have at least allowed the resident to consider his options for managing the noise experienced. It was therefore found that the landlord’s final response was appropriate.
  2. This Service is aware, however, that the landlord did not honour its proposed next steps. While the landlord’s difficulty in arranging access for a noise specialist to consider the flooring / insulation has been noted, it is still the case that the assessment was not undertaken until approximately a year later. Contrary to good practice, it appears that there was little communication with the resident during this time to manage his expectations and the resident has since advised this Service that he has still not been updated on the findings of the assessment. The Ombudsman has subsequently found that there was a further failure in service. 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should award the resident £250, in addition to the award already offered, in recognition of its ongoing handling of the matter.
  2. The landlord should also, if it has not done so already, share the findings of the assessment of the neighbour’s flooring / insulation with the resident. Along with the report, which should address the resident’s previous questions, the landlord should set out how it plans to address any deficiencies discovered and should work with the resident to find a solution for any ongoing noise being experienced.
  3. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence that it has fulfilled the above orders within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

  1. If the landlord has not done so already, it should ensure that it reviews the management agreement, and clearly communicates the roles and responsibilities of both organisations to all residents, as it said it would.