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

Peabody Trust (202119360)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119360

Peabody Trust

12 September 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning noise nuisance.

Background

  1. The resident, who is an assured tenant, first reported her concerns regarding noise nuisance on 20 September 2021. Her concerns were mainly due to the slamming of the communal door in the building, but she did also mention that she could hear neighbours having a party every weekend, and that she could hear everything from the flat above. The landlord opened an ASB investigation and advised the resident to fill out diary sheets regarding the noise. Following this, an action plan was created for the resident, which included filling out more diary sheets. The landlord also asked the resident to download a noise recording app so that she could send in audio evidence of the noise nuisance. The case was eventually closed on 9 December 2021 as the landlord believed that there was a lack of evidence from the diary sheets, and it had not received any noise recordings from the resident.
  2. The resident, through the help of a representative, submitted her formal complaint on 18 November 2021. The complaint sought a resolution to the noise nuisance/noise insulation issue. It also queried when a meeting between the landlord and the resident’s support circle would take place as suggested by the landlord. As well as these, the resident also raised damp issues within the property. However, the landlord advised that it was not within the remit of that particular department to address damp/repair issues. It advised the resident to raise a complaint with the repairs team and provided the details to do so.
  3. The landlord reopened the ASB case and asked the resident to re-submit the sound recordings. Following this, it offered to install sound recording equipment (SRE) in the property, or for a professional witness to attend the property. The resident at first accepted the SRE however declined once she discovered that she would need to press a button on the device to register the noise. She also declined the professional witness.
  4. The landlord’s final response (20 January 2022), determined that it had acted appropriately in investigating the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It deemed that it had completed all steps as per the action plan, and had attempted to support the resident and her needs. The landlord also recognised that there had been a service failure by not following up a recommendation to install a door closure lever to minimise the slamming. It confirmed that it had re-raised the job and offered £100 compensation for the failure to install the lever. The landlord also denied the resident’s request to be transferred to a different property. In an email to this Service on 6 April 2022, the landlord confirmed that it had adjusted the door, and that it had offered to put up a sign next to the door to request residents to be mindful of the door, but the resident declined this. The resident remained dissatisfied and wanted to be transferred.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. Section 7.1 of the landlord’s compensation policy states that up to £100 can be awarded where ‘service failure occurred, but low impact and low effort to resolve’.
  2. The landlord’s ASB Procedure states that ‘once the case manager has gathered all the relevant information from the complainant, and completed any interviews, they should review the action plan and decide on the most effective option(s) available’.
  3. Section 6.7 of the landlord’s ASB Procedure states that ‘the case manager should close a case where: …there is not enough evidence to take further action’.

Scope of Investigation

  1. Throughout the correspondence presented to this Service, the resident made several mentions of damp, mould, and cracks at the property. These issues have not progressed through the landlord’s ICP. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. Additionally, from the evidence provided, it appears that the resident may have already done so, in which case, she should wait for it to exhaust the ICP and come to this Service if unsatisfied with the outcome.
  2. The resident has also referenced how the landlord’s handling of her noise nuisance reports has impacted her physical and mental health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

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

  1. The resident reported her concerns of noise nuisance and loud parties on 20 September 2021. In response to this, the landlord advised the resident to keep a diary with the dates and times of each incident. This was a reasonable first step for the landlord to suggest, and one that would be expected in all noise nuisance and ASB investigations. Following this, the landlord conducted interviews with the occupants of the building to determine whether anyone had either been responsible for the noise, or whether any of the occupants had also heard the noise that the resident had reported.
  2. This was appropriate as it was important to know whether the noise was severe enough to have disturbed any of the other occupants. The resident was not happy that other occupants had been contacted, as she said that this had caused them to become aggressive with her. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had identified the resident to the other occupants as part of the interview process. Whilst it is understandable the resident felt uneasy with other occupants being interviewed regarding her complaint, it is important to note that interviews with other occupants are a common and necessary part of any investigation into noise complaints.
  3. The landlord’s ASB Procedure states that ‘once the case manager has gathered all the relevant information from the complainant, and completed any interviews, they should review the action plan and decide on the most effective option(s) available’. The landlord followed this procedure by advising the resident to fill out more diary sheets, and requested that she download a noise recording app in order to submit audio evidence. It also informed the resident that it had spoken to the other occupants of the building, who had not identified any noise nuisance issues. Therefore, the landlord also suggested that the resident could use earplugs. This was a reasonable suggestion, as the landlord pointed out, noise can be subjective. What may be a nuisance for some, may be reasonable and acceptable to others. This is why the noise recording app and diary sheets were suggested, in order to determine how often and to what extent the noise was affecting the resident.
  4. Whilst it was good that the landlord set out an action plan, it had to re-send the action plan letter and diary sheets to the resident. The landlord noted that it had initially failed to send these items to the resident. The landlord did not specify what had led to this, but it is important for the landlord to ensure that all correspondence is sent within a reasonable timeframe. Failure to send necessary correspondence and items to carry out an investigation can cause unnecessary delay in the continuation of the investigation.
  5. It was noted by the landlord that the diary sheets the resident had filled out were vague in terms of the time in which occurrences had taken place. In its final response (20 January 2022), the landlord explained why the diary sheets had been an issue. It noted that the sheets did not provide specific times, and described noises as happening between 11:30pm and 08:00am. It explained to the resident that ‘[the landlord could not] take this forward because the door slamming at, say, 3:00am in the morning, is different than, at 8:00am which would be everyday living noise’.
  6. This was reasonable for the landlord to note, as the purpose of the ASB investigation was to determine, through an evidence-based process, whether the noise was excessive, consistent, and unreasonable. Without sufficient time details from the resident, it was unable to make the distinction, as noted, between excessive noise and everyday living noise. In an email on 9 December 2021, the landlord noted that it had also not received any audio recordings from the resident. Therefore, the case was closed. This was reasonable as there was an insufficient amount of evidence for the landlord to come to a definitive conclusion regarding the noise and in line with the landlord’s policy.
  7. Although the landlord closed the case due to a lack of evidence, it did advise internally that it wanted to make a referral to the Tenant and Family Support Team (TFST). This highlighted that the landlord was concerned for the resident, and was committed to finding a resolution that helped the resident. In doing so, the landlord would have showed its intention to maintain sufficient support for the resident, despite not coming to a definitive conclusion on her noise nuisance complaint. This could have potentially improved the tenant/landlord relationship, however it is not clear whether this referral was made. If not, it would be appropriate for the landlord to still ensure that it makes the referral on behalf of the resident.
  8. Following contact from this Service, and a formal complaint from the resident (18 November 2021), the landlord asked the resident to re-send the audio that she had recorded as part of the action plan, as the landlord had not received it previously. After listening to the audio evidence submitted by the resident, the landlord agreed to install sound recording equipment (SRE) at the resident’s home. The landlord noted that this normally had a waiting list of roughly three months, however, it fast-tracked the resident in order to have the SRE installed as soon as possible.
  9. Not only was it appropriate for the landlord to agree to installing SRE to investigate the noise nuisance further, but the landlord exercised its reasonable discretion to fast-track the resident in order to have the equipment installed quickly. This demonstrated again, the landlord’s commitment to helping the resident and meeting her needs. The landlord had shown that it was willing to go above and beyond, which would have also potentially improved the landlord/tenant relationship.
  10. Although the landlord had agreed to install the SRE, the resident was not satisfied with the type of device that would be used to record the noise. The resident stated that she did not want to have to press a button to record the noise, as this would require her to be next to the machine at all times. She also wanted the landlord to purchase a different device, one that would record the sounds automatically.
  11. The resident’s request to have the landlord buy a new device was not a reasonable request. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain that the device was the same device that is used for all noise nuisance complaints, and that it would not use a different device for the purpose of continuity. It also explained to the resident how the device worked in order to clear up any confusion, but the resident was not satisfied. The landlord also explained in its final response, that the purpose of the device was to demonstrate how often the noise happened, where the noises were recorded and how often over a set period of time the noises were heard. Without this, the landlord did not know if the noise was everyday noise or excessive. As well as turning down the SRE, the resident also declined the option of having a professional witness to attend to observe the noise nuisance themselves.
  12. Both the offer of the SRE and the professional witness were consistent with how a landlord should attempt to investigate claims of noise nuisance. The SRE was the same that the landlord used for all of its noise investigations, and it would be unreasonable for the landlord to invest in new equipment for the purpose of one investigation. Having conducted interviews, provided diary sheets, and offered the resident the use of SRE and a professional witness, the landlord had attempted everything available in order to conduct a thorough investigation into the noise complaints.
  13. Following this, the landlord still raised the order to have a door closure leaver installed (as confirmed in an email on 14 January 2022) in order to minimise the slamming of the communal door. It also offered to place a sign by the communal door that advised tenants to be mindful when closing the door. However, the resident declined to have the sign placed. The landlord demonstrated reasonable discretion to attempt a resolution for the resident, even without sufficient evidence to confirm that there was a noise problem. It was also reasonable to offer these solutions rather than the transfer that the resident had requested, as the resident did not meet the criteria that would be sufficient in granting a transfer.
  14. Although the landlord raised the work order to install the door closure lever, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a service failure in this not being carried out in first place. The landlord noted that the job had been raised previously (unclear when it was raised), but that a potential communication error had caused the work to not have been carried out. It is important for the landlord to maintain sufficient communication levels in all instances, but especially in relation to repairs and works that need to be completed in response to a complaint investigation.
  15. The landlord offered £100 compensation in recognition of this failure. This was in line with its compensation policy, as noted above. This offer of compensation was also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests that for instances in which there was a ‘failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact’, a payment of £50 to £250 would be appropriate. It also advised that it would raise the failure with its repairs team in order to ensure that failures like this did not re-occur. This was in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles, which encourages landlords to look past the individual complaint, and to determine how it can improve its service delivery for all in the future.
  16. It is reasonable to determine that overall, the landlord acted reasonably and appropriately in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding noise nuisance. The landlord, on multiple occasions, showed a commitment to resolving the issue for the resident. The landlord exercised reasonable discretion in attempting to find a resolution for the resident, even though there had been insufficient evidence to suggest that works were needed. Additionally, the compensation offered was reasonable in the circumstances and with this in mind, the landlord’s efforts, communication, and compensation offered to the resident constitutes reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended, if not done so already, for the landlord to:
    1. Fulfil the commitment of making a TFST referral for the resident, to see if there are any other ways in which the resident can be supported.
    2. Pay the £100 compensation.