LiveWest Homes Limited (202015987)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015987

LiveWest Homes Limited

31 August 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 reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), in particular, noise nuisance.
2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s associated handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The resident has been an assured periodic tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 14 May 2018.
4. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, in particular noise nuisance. She was of the view that the landlord’s action was insufficient, leading to the problem continuing for a protracted period of time.  The resident was also dissatisfied that the landlord had not escalated her complaint, as she had requested.
5. The landlord’s stage two response upheld the complaint, finding service failures in both the handling of the reported ASB and the associated complaint.  Specifically, the landlord apologised that the resident felt pressurised into signing a ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’, that it should have given greater consideration to sound insulation given this was a recommendation by Environmental Health and accepting that it did not appreciate the reasons for the resident’s reluctance to engage in mediation. It also found delay in raising and responding to the complaint, failure to escalate it when it should have and failure to fully address the different aspects of the complaint that were raised.
6. The landlord offered a total of £250 compensation in recognition of its findings; £150 in respect of its handling of the reports of noise nuisance and £100 in respect of its complaints handling failures. The landlord apologised for the failures identified and explained that it had made changes to its processes, whereby a complaint would be automatically escalated where it is sent directly to the chief executive’s office.
7. Since the complaint, the landlord additionally made a contribution of £1325 to the Benevolent Fund who paid for the cost of soundproofing to the resident’s property, to help with the costs.  It also covered the costs of redecorating following the soundproofing works, specifically, £771. The landlord has also advised that the resident accepted an offer of therapy funded by it.
8. The resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint; she does not believe the level of compensation sufficiently reflects the circumstances, in particular, the length of time the situation went on for and the impact on her health.

Assessment and findings

Handling of ASB

9. In cases concerning ASB and noise nuisance, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the noise nuisance occurred, but rather, to assess how the landlord responded and whether its responses were in accordance with its policies and procedures and were appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances. The landlord’s ASB Policy states that noise nuisance amounts to a ‘priority two’ or ‘amber’ category, which should be responded to within 24 hours, with an investigation beginning within five days.
10. In this case, the noise nuisance was predominantly by way of music, which the resident could hear through the adjoining property wall and reported it on a number of occasions from at least March 2019.  Having initially advised the resident to knock on her neighbour’s door asking them to reduce the noise, which was unsuccessful, the landlord visited the property in August 2019, firstly to listen to the recordings of noise the resident had made and latterly to conduct a joint visit.
11. The landlord’s actions to the reports were appropriate, though not in accordance with its ASB policy in respect of timeframes.  Having received a report of essentially what was noise transference, without any particularly aggravating factors at the outset, the landlord responded in a proportionate way by way of the actions it took to identify the extent of the issue faced by the resident.  Living in close proximity to others, there is an expectation of ordinary living noise, including noise such as from vacuuming, floors creaking and doors opening and closing.  It was a reasonable response by the landlord to suggest the resident knock on her neighbour’s property to let them know about the noise because it may have been that the neighbour was unaware of the volume and an agreement around the volume and time could be amicably reached.
12. When this was unsuccessful, with what the resident describes as having the door “slammed in her face” and with the noise continuing, it was appropriate that the landlord became directly involved by way of visiting the resident and listening to the evidence she had recorded, followed by a joint visit to discuss the issues with the neighbour concerned. The landlord took too long to take action, however.  The landlord’s ASB policy states the importance of “early intervention” and it missed opportunities to respond early, which enabled the matter to escalate from noise transference, into noise nuisance, a neighbour dispute, counter-allegations and ASB, over time. 
13. In the absence of a more robust response, relations between the neighbours worsened and the noise continued, with the resident reporting this into and throughout 2020 and 2021.  The early intervention opportunities of introducing a ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’, issuing a warning and offering mediation were actions appropriately taken, but too late, which undoubtedly undermined the chance of them being successful.
14. Turning to the closure of the ASB case in April 2020, this was inappropriate because the matter was unresolved and escalating in intensity, with neighbour relations having significantly declined and counter-complaints being made. This was particularly inappropriate because the landlord had taken insufficient steps at this stage to resolve the issue. Whilst there was no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance, there was noise that was causing a disturbance to the resident, for which there was evidence. The neighbour who was said to be causing the noise was said to have impaired hearing, although it did not follow that excessive noise was therefore permissible. 
15. Moreover, in the month prior to the landlord’s decision to close the case, Environmental Health had recommended sound insulation.  This was insufficiently considered by the landlord. Whilst a recommendation is not an obligation, the landlord did not appropriately consider whether it would provide sound insulation and arrive at a decision having done so. The landlord did consider building regulations and whether it was obliged to upgrade the sound proofing, which it was not, as it would amount to an improvement to the property which it was not obliged to make.  It did not consider any discretionary action in respect of sound proofing given the recommendation, however.  Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges a landlord to maintain a property and to carry out repair, not to make improvements, which sound insulation would be. However, it could have considered the option beyond legal requirements, which it did not. 
16. Although consideration of the option would not necessarily lead to agreement to carry out these works, without consideration of all possible options, the landlord was unable to satisfy itself that it had comprehensively assessed the situation, possible ways forward and arrived at the most appropriate and reasonable conclusion having done so. In terms of the worsening relations between neighbours, resolution is not always possible, however, the landlord at this stage had taken insufficient action in respect of this and escalation of the situation eventually resulted in police involvement.
17. The premature closure of the ASB/noise nuisance case in April 2020, led to the matter being reopened two months later in June 2020, with the issues continuing. The landlord’s actions by way of discussion and visits to both properties were appropriate, as was the warning letter to the neighbour, although there was a lack of robustness in addressing the issues and matters remained unresolved.  Having been closed again in August 2020, the case continued to be open in effect, with reports, discussions and visits continuing thereafter and sound testing, the offer of mediation and a ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’ made the following month, in September 2020. The landlord’s somewhat unusual offer of funding for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for the resident, was in response to her expression of the impact of the situation on her mental health.  This offer by the landlord was reasonable as it was not required to do this and it is commendable that the landlord looked at alternative options by way of looking to achieve a resolution.  The issue itself continued, however, which meant that the CBT was acting as a plaster to the situation, leaving the root cause unaddressed.
18. Although the landlord began to investigate grants to soundproof both properties this same month of September 2020, confusingly, the case was again closed shortly thereafter.  Because the matters were unresolved and ongoing, the resident remained dissatisfied and continued to report issues with noise throughout October, November and December 2020 and her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to the reports, requesting that the matter be ‘escalated’. The landlord’s response that it would push for funding for sound proofing was reasonable, as it was not obliged to do this, as discussed above, although it did not effectively manage expectations in providing a timeframe for this or next steps. The resident has said that the landlord initially verbally said it would provide soundproofing, then changed its mind, although there is no evidence to attest to this.  Irrespective, it was not obliged to soundproof the property, although if it had said it would then it would not, this would amount to poor communication and expectation management.
19. The resident continued to report issues of noise nuisance to the landlord, with the ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’ purportedly breached by the neighbour as soon as it expired and a further joint visit took place in March 2021.  This is also when the formal complaint was recognised and raised by the landlord and this is discussed below.
20. Information provided to this Service by the landlord, states that a total of 35 emails were received by it from the resident between 3 April 2020 and 23 March 2021 and seven emails were returned to her by it.  These emails from the landlord are in addition to letters, phone calls and visits to the property to speak with the resident and witness any noise directly. The volume of contact and reports made, warranted a more efficient and robust approach than the landlord took.
21. The landlord’s handling of the complaint is discussed in the section below.  However, the landlord’s complaint response encompasses the redress in respect of its handling of the reports of noise nuisance, so is important to address this here. In its response to the complaint, the landlord recognised its failings, apologising for aspects including its lack of appreciation for the resident’s reluctance to engage in mediation later on, not sufficiently considering the sound insulation recommended by Environmental Health and for the resident feeling pressurised into signing the ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’. 
22. Apologising where there have been acknowledged failures is an important aspect of complaints handling and its recognition of failures in handling the situation and apologies associated with these was appropriate and important, demonstrating it had taken the matter seriously.  In terms of compensation, this is discretionary and not an automatic right.  While £150 is arguably at the lower end of the scale given the length of time the matter went on for and the failures found, it is within the Ombudsman’s guidance for compensation, which is up to £250 for service failure, with anything beyond that more suitable in cases of maladministration, which was not the case here.
23. Moreover, following the conclusion of the complaints process, the landlord went further in providing redress.  Specifically, it agreed to the resident installing soundproofing, which was funded by a charitable organisation, to which it made a contribution of £1325.  The landlord went further thereafter, covering the costs of redecorating following the soundproofing works, amounting to £771.  The landlord’s actions in contributing to the cost of soundproofing and the cost of the associated redecoration works were reasonable.  They were reasonable because the landlord was not obliged to do this, as discussed above and the cost was significant. Taking into account all of the circumstances and the landlord’s response to the complaint, including the acknowledgement of failures, apologies, compensation, agreement to soundproofing and a contribution of costs towards this and redecoration costs, the landlord has made reasonable redress. While the landlord could and should have acted faster and in a more robust manner, it has put right the complaint, to the satisfaction of the Ombudsman and this Service.

Complaint handling

24. Making a report of noise transference or any report of ASB is a report and should be distinguished from a complaint.  It follows that the reports the resident made were just that and there was not initially a complaint.  The complaint came later, when the resident became dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports and expressed this to the landlord.  The landlord failed to recognise that a complaint was being made, confusing this with a report.  The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance and explicitly requested that the matter be ‘escalated’ into a complaint from at least December 2020 and the landlord did not act on this as it should have done.
25. The resident again expressed her dissatisfaction in March 2021, on at least three occasions, including contacting the landlord’s CEO, to no avail.  The landlord’s ‘Complaints Policy’ states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours and aims to provide a response within five working days, or more where required, which it will communicate.  However, it did not act in accordance with its own policy.  The landlord’s response on 17 March 2017 was inappropriate insofar as it still did not acknowledge that a complaint was being made.  The landlord, in its response to the complaint, has recognised that there was a failure to acknowledge that there was a complaint, apologising for this and offering £50 in recognition. 
26. Additionally, it has explained that where any expression of dissatisfaction is sent to its CEO again, this will immediately be considered a formal complaint and processed accordingly.  Changes in process are important, showing learning by the landlord in respect of its mistakes and an opportunity to make improvements to policies and processes, to help prevent a recurrence.  It follows that it was appropriate that the landlord did this. 
27. The landlord’s eventual response to the complaint at stage one on 9 April 2021 failed to appropriately respond to all of the issues raised by the resident, which it acknowledged and apologised for in its stage two response to the complaint, offering a further £50 in recognition of the failure. The resident has said that she believed the complaint was at stage two rather than stage one of the complaints process at this point, which she had understood from a conversation with a member of staff.  Due to the nature of this understanding having said to have arisen from a conversation, there is no evidence to support what was or was not said.  What is clear however, is that there was a misunderstanding which could indicate a further communication issue on the part of the landlord. 
28. The landlord apologised for its late response at stage one, although did not recognise or apologise for its delay in responding at stage two, which should be within seven days of a request for escalation, in accordance with its policy. It did, however, apologise for the failures it identified in other aspects of its complaints handling, as described and offered a total of £100 compensation for this, which was in addition to the £150 offered in respect of service failures in responding to the reports of noise nuisance, totalling £250. 
29. Considered in its entirety, as well as the offer of compensation, the change in process, funded therapy and soundproofing permission, contribution towards cost and decorating costs amount to in excess of £700, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolve the complaint.  This is because the landlord has recognised failings, taken steps to prevent a recurrence, put things right by way of apologising, offering compensation and paying towards the cost of preventing issues with noise transference, which it was not obliged to do, as well as recognise the detrimental impact on the resident’s mental health, for which it funded therapy.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of the complaint about its handling of the reports of noise nuisance.
31. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its associated handling of the complaint.