Karbon Homes Limited (202100441)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100441

Karbon Homes Limited

6 April 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:

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to investigate issues of noise transference at the property.
The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background and relevant policies/procedures

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 14 November 2005. The property is a one bedroom, ground floor flat. The complaint under investigation primarily relates to the resident’s reports about noise disturbance from the property above his, which is also owned and managed by the landlord.
The landlord’s ‘Repairs Policy’ states that ‘standard repairs’ will be carried out within 20 working days.
The landlord has a two-stage formal complaints policy whereby it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint at stage one, within ten working days of its receipt, following an initial conversation with the complainant in order to understand the dissatisfaction. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint and requests escalation to stage two, this must be done within ten working days. Thereafter, the landlord aims to review the complaint and provide a response at stage two within ten working days thereafter.
Where the landlord requires additional time to respond to a complaint at either stage one or stage two, it will contact the complainant and let them know, providing a revised timescale within which they can expect to receive a response.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out at paragraph 10.12, that it will not investigate complaints that are repeated submissions of the same issues/complaint that has already been formally dealt with.
The landlord’s ‘Unacceptable Behaviour Policy’ sets out under section 3.3.2. that ‘unreasonable requests’ by a complainant may include ‘excessive contact’, ‘refusing to cooperate with the investigation process while still wishing their concerns to be resolved’ and ‘seeking to have staff replaced that are dealing with a complaint’.
Paragraph 3.4 of the same policy talks of ‘unacceptable persistence’ by a complainant, including ‘submitting repeat complaints, after complaints processes have been completed, essentially about the same issues’, ‘persistent refusal to accept a decision’ and ‘persistent refusal to accept explanations relating to what we can or cannot do’.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records state, on 12 October 2020, that there had been regular email contact from the resident over recent months, highlighting issues which had previously been raised and answers had been given to his questions, but that he remained unsatisfied and had continued to raise the same matters. The notes state that the resident had still not agreed to engage with the landlord to seek to address the issues, however and would also not engage in telephone contact.
On 23 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord, stating that the matter of soundproofing and the landlord’s inaction in respect of this was now with this Service and went on to describe detriment to his mental and physical health for living in a property for 15 years with no soundproofing. The resident stated that the landlord had failed to attend the property, after his neighbour had given permission for this to happen and asked why this had happened, as well as reasons for it not attending as soon as the national lockdown was eased. The resident went on to ask why he had been issued with tenancy warnings and why he had been given allocated points of contact.
On 2 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident, stating that it had not yet been able to mutually agree a date to meet and discuss the issues the resident raised with soundproofing and asked him to get in touch in order to arrange this. The landlord advised it would like to discuss the matter and have access to his home, to investigate and move things forward.
On 8 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to state that it had still not addressed the lack of soundproofing in the ceiling and that the property should never have been let without this. He said he did not want to record anything but wanted the landlord to resolve the issue. On 12 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord again, asking when it was going to investigate issues with soundproofing at the property and whether it had been in touch with his neighbour to arrange a date.
On 13 November 2020, the landlord emailed the resident advising again that it could not progress the matter until it had met with the resident or discussed the matter over the telephone. The landlord also advised that due to the nature of the resident’s contact, it had given him a single point of contact.
On 20 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord again about the issues, expressing his frustration that the landlord had not yet attended the property and said he felt abandoned by the landlord, since he advised it in 2009/2010 that the noise had abated. The resident did not believe it was fair to put the onus on him in respect of having to record noise, which also caused animosity between him and his neighbour and detrimentally affected his health. He also said that having to speak to the landlord for it to start investigating issues was insulting and discriminatory. The resident said that the stairway to the above property which was over his bedroom, which needed sealing off.
On 25 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord again regarding the issue and asking what the landlord was going to do about it.
On 26 November 2020, the landlord once again wrote to the resident, reiterating its position of 2 November 2020 and advising that to date, no mutually agreeable date to attend the property to investigate and discuss the issues had been made. It noted that a provisional date had previously been made of 16 September 2020 but this unfortunately did not go ahead and urged him to contact it.
On 27 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord, complaining about a member of its staff who had issued him with a warning for Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) which he said had no legal basis and that the member of staff had failed to investigate issues with noise transference that he had been reporting.
On 12 January 2021, the landlord responded to the complaint, which was not upheld, with a finding that it was the resident’s behaviour that was problematic, not that of its staff member, noting the resident had been issued with a formal written tenancy warning. The landlord stated that it had not obstructed the investigation of the reported noise transference issues but instead, there had been a lack of engagement from resident.
There was further communication between the landlord and resident during January 2021, with the landlord issuing two warnings to the resident, in respect of his behaviour towards its staff.
The resident continued to contact the landlord about issues with soundproofing at the property and the landlord having determined that there was no issue, without having attended and investigated. In particular, an email was sent on 11 February 2021 about this, which was responded to by the landlord on 22 February 2021, again offering a visit.
On 25 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident, in response to correspondence from him regarding a range of historic issues, as well as him stating that he had been inappropriately signed up to a tenancy agreement at a property with no soundproofing. It explained that the property was at a lettable standard and no issues with soundproofing had been identified.
On 10 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord about ongoing issues with noise transference at the property and expressed that he felt he had been signed up to a property with insufficient sound proofing and that the landlord had failed to investigate the issues when raised by him. The landlord responded on the same date, offering him an inspection date of 26 March 2021 and the matter was logged as a formal complaint around this time.
On 15 March 2021, the landlord responded to the resident, making the following points:
1. Prior to the resident moving into the property, the landlord had carried out routine maintenance and the property was let at a lettable standard, in accordance with its procedures; there is no evidence that there were issues with soundproofing.
2. The resident, having viewed the property, decided to sign the tenancy agreement and move into it. No concerns were raised by him about soundproofing.
3. In response to the resident’s later reports about soundproofing issues, it had offered numerous home visits and telephone appointments to seek to understand the issues the resident was raising about noise, but he had not engaged in this. Until such a time as it had visited the property and had a conversation with the resident about his concerns around soundproofing, any actions or next steps could not be identified.
4. It noted the resident had been issued with a number of tenancy warnings due to inappropriate and offensive language and conduct towards its staff, referencing a number of email excerpts between August 2020 and January 2021 and explained that this is why he had been given designated contacts.
Correspondence continued from the resident and on 9 April 2021, the landlord wrote to him in a letter entitled ‘stage one acknowledgement’. In the letter, the landlord explained that since raising his concerns about soundproofing, it had been unable to mutually agree an appointment with him to visit the property.
It noted that the resident had recently agreed to ‘Environmental Health’ attending the property and obtaining an initial understanding and feedback regarding noise and soundproofing. The landlord explained that it would therefore now be progressing with next steps and meeting with ‘Environmental Health’ the following week. In terms of timescales, it said it would be unable to provide this but would progress the matter as soon as possible.
On 16 April 2021, the resident wrote a letter to his neighbour, stating that he had sent a text to them on 19 March 2021, requesting that they repair their floorboards near or on the stairway to the property, which were creaking and causing him disturbance, which had not been done. He asked his neighbour to contact his landlord to ask for this to be repaired.
On 17 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord about the same issue with his neighbour’s floorboards and having asked it to carry out repair to it which had not happened. The resident described a detrimental impact on his mental health and said that he would hold the landlord responsible for any escalating violence between himself and his neighbour, as a result of the landlord’s inaction.
On 20 April 2021, the landlord responded to the resident about the reported squeaky floorboards in the neighbouring property. The landlord said it had noted the issue but would not be contacting his neighbour or repairing the floorboards until the issues with soundproofing had been assessed.
The landlord also reiterated that delay in investigating the issues with soundproofing had been due to the resident’s lack of engagement and encouraged him to continue to engage, as well as not to contact his neighbour. It said it would be in touch once it could determine the next steps and actions for investigating the noise issues raised.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord re-sent the letter of 9 April 2021, which the resident said he had not received.
On 6 May 2021, an acoustic report, commissioned by the landlord was carried out at the property. The resident states that the survey did not include testing of the bathroom.
On 14 May 2021, the resident chased up his complaint, to which the landlord responded on 17 May 2021. In its response, it said it had agreed to appoint an independent acoustic engineer to undertake a survey at the property, to ascertain the position with regards to soundproofing and that it was awaiting the findings from that.
On 7 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident, following a further complaint about a member of its staff and delayed action in respect of the issues of noise transference at the property. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, finding that it had dealt with the issues appropriately. It reiterated that now that the resident had allowed Environmental Health to visit the property, and share its initial thoughts, it was able to progress the matter by taking forward any steps.
On 11 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident, in response to a request from him for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the complaints process. It explained that it was not in a position to do this because a stage one response had not yet been issued. It said that this was because although the acoustic survey report was due 3-4 weeks after it had taken place, it had not yet been received.
On 28 June 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s MP, who had contacted it on 22 June 2021, on his behalf. It reiterated its explanation that there was a delay in obtaining the report results from the company who carried out the acoustic testing.
On 6 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the results of the acoustic survey of 6 May 2021, with the subsequent report being dated 22 June 2021. In terms of the length of time it had taken to write with the results, the landlord noted that it had previously explained that it would take some time after having received the report, to review the findings with its ‘Asset’ and ‘Property Services’ teams. It said it had also shared the report with the local authority.
The landlord said it was sharing the ‘basics of the results’ with the resident and provided a detailed table referencing the results of sound testing which had taken place in both the resident’s property and his neighbour’s property, to test the floor impact and floor airborne sound insulation.
The landlord explained that the results of the testing showed that the property was compliant with Building Regulations, for “Dwelling houses and flats formed by material change of use” and it would therefore not be conducting any sound proofing works or assessing structural issues. It said it aimed to provide a formal response to the complaint at stage one, by 23 July 2021.
On 21 July 2021, the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure. It explained that the delay was attributable to it needing to gain further information from the resident about the problem, who had been consistently uncooperative. It said it also needed to determine what steps were required, as previously explained.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the resident’s frustration over how he felt his complaint had been dealt with “over several years”. It said that in investigating the complaint, it had read and reviewed extensive historical information pertaining to the complaint, in particular, correspondence from the resident.
It recognised the delays in its responding to the issue over the past 12 months, which it apologised for and said was due to the impact of Covid-19, although it also noted that there was a significant level of correspondence from the resident, raising a number of issues, which it had tried to bring together and respond to. Additionally, the landlord noted that the resident had raised the same issues repeatedly, such as correspondence not being received by the landlord, when it had sent it and said that there was no reason for letters not to arrive with him.
The landlord said the demands of the resident meant that it would not correspond with him by email in future, unless the matter was brief; anything beyond this would be in writing. The landlord made the following findings:
1. In 2005, at the start of the tenancy, the resident was the perpetrator of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) in respect of noise nuisance and that appropriate advice was given to him in respect of this, with his behaviour towards a member of staff also being unacceptable.
2. In 2008, the resident again perpetrated ASB and assaulted a neighbour, which resulted in a police caution. The landlord had issued him a tenancy warning in respect of this.
3. There was nothing to suggest that there was an issue with soundproofing at the property and it was not “deliberately and intentionally” let to him with a soundproofing issue, as he had stated.
4. In 2013 he was faced with the threat of eviction due to non-payment of rent, however, it acted within its policies and procedures in regards this issue.
5. In late 2019-2020, a landlord member of staff became involved in the correspondence with the resident regarding soundproofing, which was an issue which he had raised again and the issues he was reporting warranted an inspection at the property, although this was delayed due to Covid-19. The landlord explained for a “significant period”, it was only carrying out emergency works.
6. From the start of the Covid-19 lockdown until May 2020, concerns were raised in regards to the resident’s behaviour towards landlord staff, including “threats”. Consequently, it was determined that ‘Safer Communities’ would become his point of contact regarding the noise and soundproofing issues as well as his behaviour.
7. It would not be providing the resident with a copy of the acoustic report in order for him to contact the company because it did not believe this was necessary or proportionate.
8. It had commissioned and carried out an acoustic survey, which it had kept him informed about and shared with ‘Environmental Health’.
9. It did not give permission for the resident to carry out any intrusive works, even if it was at his own expense.
10. The same issue was investigated and complained and responded to in 2011 and 2017. Lack of engagement from the resident throughout meant that sound equipment was not provided. The resident had been offered noise recording equipment on multiple occasions but this was never installed due to a lack of cooperation (response or agreement) from the resident.
11. It would be sharing the same update with the neighbour and would address the issue of a squeaky floorboard from the neighbouring property but not update the resident as to the outcome of this and told him not to contact his neighbour himself.
12. Due to high levels of contact which had been at times, unreasonable and repetitive, the landlord had decided to give him a direct point of contact. It would not tolerate threatening, harassing or unacceptable behaviour towards its staff and would take legal action if the action continued.
13. The landlord asked the resident to stay in touch with his GP regarding his mental health.
14. It asked that he consider his housing options, given the landlord had no intention of carrying out soundproofing works and how the resident had described the situation affecting him.
15. It acknowledged its own delay on responding to the complaint but found that no soundproofing was required.
On 30 July 2021, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the outcome of his complaint and requested escalation of it to stage two. In his further correspondence to the landlord, on 3 and 5 August 2021, the resident described the situation with noise transference, stating he could hear “everything”, including his neighbour going to the toilet and excrement hitting the pan. He described the situation as “torture” and it creating animosity between him and his neighbour.
The resident went on to express his dissatisfaction that the landlord had never attended the property to witness the issues with noise transference and believed there to be concrete in the ceiling and structural issues, which he wanted looking into. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had refused him permission to employ a structural engineer himself and requested permission to do this, making assurances he would pay for the cost and any damage. The resident also requested disclosure of the acoustic noise test that the landlord had commissioned at the property.
The landlord acknowledged escalation of the complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure on 2 August 2021, advising that it aimed to provide a final response by 27 August 2021.
On 1 September 2021, the landlord provided its final response to the complaint at stage two of its complaints process. The complaint response enclosed a copy of the acoustic report, with the company name and details redacted, which the landlord explained was because the company would not share details with a third party. The landlord assured the resident that the accredited company was independent and recommended by the ‘Environmental Health Team’. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, finding that it had acted in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The landlord explained that in carrying out the acoustic testing, a number of tests are conducted, which result in a pass or fail for ‘resistance for passage of sound’ and that the resident’s property passed all of the tests; had it not, recommendations to improve noise insulation would have been made but this was not the case. It also advised that it had provided the report to the ‘Environmental Team’ who had not made any recommendations either and the case had been closed. The landlord stated that it had no intention of carrying out any further investigation, as the property met the relevant Building Regulations (2010) and was sufficiently sound insulated.
In terms of the resident’s request to employ a structural engineer himself, it did not grant permission for him to do this, explaining its reasons for this were because it did not see what this would achieve, given the acoustic test it had already carried out, which determined that the property met appropriate Building Regulations and was sufficiently sound insulated. It also noted that structural tests can be intrusive and this was completely unnecessary.
The landlord did accept, however, that it had taken time to resolve the issues and in recognition of the stress caused, offered the resident £50 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident states that he has been raising issues with noise transference at the property from 2016 and that it took the landlord five years to provide a stage one response to his complaint. The evidence supports the fact that the resident has been reporting issues for a protracted period, spanning a number of years and that there have been discussions, investigations and formal complaints made about the issue historically, as well as complaints made about landlord staff handling the issue and the original sign-up process to the tenancy.
The most recent complaint concluded the landlord’s complaints process on 1 September 2021 and this is the complaint upon which the Ombudsman’s investigation is focussed. The Ombudsman will not consider historic matters for reasons pertaining to paragraphs 39(d) and 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which confirm the normal timescales for raising complaints with a member landlord and to this Service.
Whilst the resident has stated it has taken five years for the landlord to provide a complaint response, there is evidence of historic complaints responses being provided by the landlord, as well as the landlord declining to investigate matters on other occasions, which is also an argument the resident makes as to delay.
It is relevant here that the landlord is entitled to decline to investigate matters it has already investigated and matters which do not constitute a complaint, in accordance with its complaints process. Where the resident disagreed with this and/or considered he was having difficulty in progressing his complaint at any point and for any reason, he had the option of contacting the Ombudsman for assistance in progressing his complaint through the complaints process, which he did not do.
It is also important to draw a distinction between reporting an issue to a landlord and making a formal complaint. When an issue is reported to a landlord, it is obliged to investigate and carry out any repairs required, within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law. When a complaint is made, the landlord is obliged to investigate the complaint, in accordance with its complaints policy.
The resident may have been reporting issues for a lengthy period, but this is separate and different to, making a formal complaint about those same issues. This investigation is focussed upon the formal complaint dated 10 March 2021 and the events that were specifically considered as part of this complaint.

Noise transference and soundproofing

In cases concerning noise transference, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the levels of noise transference breached Building Regulations or any other standards, but rather, to assess how the landlord responded to reports of issues with noise transference and whether its responses were in accordance with its policies and procedures and appropriate in all the circumstances.
In this case, the resident has said he has been reported issues with noise transference for years and this is not disputed by the landlord, although it says that the resident has not engaged with it in progressing with the investigation of the issues and also that he continued to re-raise the same issues in his correspondence with it.
The landlord consistently stated that the resident was re-raising issues with noise transference, yet not engaging with it in order for an investigation to be carried out. The landlord clearly offered to attend the property to investigate and discuss the issues with the resident (2 November 2020) which the resident declined, stating that he did not want to record anything but wanted the issue resolved.
The landlord repeated its offer again on 13 and 26 November 2020, 22 February 2021 and 10 March 2021, following further contact from the resident about the issue. On both 26 March and 9 April 2021, the landlord further conveyed to the resident the reasons for a lack of progression in investigating the issue, which was due to his non-engagement, making it clear how the matter could be progressed if the resident engaged. In the latter letter, the landlord explained that it would in fact be able to progress matters because the resident had decided to engage with ‘Environmental Health’ and consider next steps, given that the resident had cooperated with the local authority.
The landlord did not give the resident a timescale for this progression of the case, however, which was inappropriate. It was inappropriate because it meant that the resident’s expectations were not managed and he therefore continued to contact it, not being assured of what action the landlord would be taking or when. Although precise timescales are not always possible in circumstances such as this, to give no indication of timeframe, or even an indication of a time by which the landlord would contact the resident, to update him in the absence of a substantive update, served to further frustrate the resident.
In terms of the squeaky floorboards which were later raised as part of the noise transference and sound proofing issues, it was reasonable that the landlord did not agree to carry out floorboard works in the property above the resident’s before the issues with noise transference had been investigated. This is because floorboards were said to be causing noise disturbance and the landlord wanted to first assess the level of noise transference or disturbance this was causing, which was a pragmatic response. This is not to say however that the noise or the landlord’s decision in this regard did not cause the resident to feel frustrated, however, which it clearly did, with him believing that this was simply evidence of the landlord’s inaction.
It was unreasonable of the landlord to advise in its stage one complaint response of 21 July 2021, however, that it would not advise the resident of the outcome of any floorboard repairs. This is because, similarly to the lack of time frame it provided in respect of its communication with ‘Environmental Health’ and next steps, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations or provide any sort of closure, leaving the situation open to him to continue to contact the landlord about the same issue and unnecessarily contributing to understandable frustration and stress on his part.
There was no explanation from the landlord as to why it would not be updating the resident as to any floorboard repair, although undoubtedly reasons included managing his contact, which had become excessive, demanding and at times, abusive, resulting in tenancy warnings being applied. Notwithstanding this, the landlord’s responsibilities to carry out any required repairs and to provide an appropriate and reasonable level of customer care, including updates as to repairs, remained.
It is important to state here that there is an obligation on the resident also, to communicate with the landlord in an appropriate fashion, which includes behaving assertively rather than aggressively and giving the landlord a reasonable opportunity to respond to emails, rather than sending multiple emails about the same or overlapping issues, over a short period of time.
There is also a reasonable obligation on the resident to engage with the landlord in its seeking to investigate matters, which he did not do, stating he did not want to record any noise transference, or to discuss the issue with the landlord and repeatedly did not cooperate with it in regards to discussion and inspection. At the same time, the resident wished for the matter to be resolved, although the situation arrived at a standstill as a result of the lack of meeting the landlord in its requests.
Deciding to commission an independent report was an appropriate way forward on the part of the landlord, as its specialist nature and independence from all parties meant that an impartial assessment could be reached. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of an independent specialist contractor and it did so, in its decision not to carry out any further investigation or works, given that the report indicated that the property met the relevant Building Regulations.
The noise transference in the property is not specifically disputed and it might be helpful to draw out this point for the resident; there is likely noise transference that he finds difficult to live with. The noise reported such as floorboards creaking and bathroom noises constitutes ordinarily living noise, however and not noise nuisance or otherwise ASB. It also does not mean the property is insufficiently soundproofed or insulated. Living in close proximity to another property there is likely going to be a level of noise transference, although this does not automatically mean that the building is insufficiently sound-proofed or that it has a structural issue.
The resident’s account of noise is not in doubt but what is also clear, however, is that the landlord is not required to carry out any soundproofing or associated works, as the acoustic survey has determined that legal limits of noise transference are not breached. The landlord is obliged to carry out the repairs at the property that it is responsible for, in accordance with the terms of the tenancy and in law. It is not, however, obliged to carry out what would be considered improvements and soundproofing would constitute an improvement to the property.
In terms of the landlord refusing the resident to commission his own structural survey, it is not obliged to agree to this request. This is because, similarly, it has carried out an independent acoustic survey which has deemed there is no issue.
Covid-19 and the national lockdown did contribute to delays in carrying out works, with all but essential works being prohibited for the initial three months and noise transference and soundproofing works would not be considered essential. Following the relaxing of restrictions, landlords were then faced with a backlog of non-essential works that required inspection and where appropriate, works or repair.
Fault for delays of non-essential works (including inspections and investigations) cannot be attributed to the landlord for these reasons and delays thereafter were due to the resident – while understandably wanting the situation resolved – not engaging with the landlord by way of discussion or inspection, as it requested and suggested as a way to progress matters. That is not to say that the landlord could not have handled the situation better, as highlighted above, in particular in respect of expectation management and lessons should be duly learned from this, although it does not constitute service failure in itself.

Complaints handling

Responding to a complaint is an opportunity for a landlord to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the issues raised and a chance to put things right. The breakdown of the landlord-tenant relationship and strained communication, with the resident’s contact having become inappropriate and excessive at times, left little room for effective communication at the complaints handling stage.
The landlord put in place appropriate boundaries in respect of designated points of contact, asserting what was unacceptable behaviourally and in deciding it would correspond in writing with the resident rather than email. Whilst the landlord appropriately identified issues of the resident seeking to re-raise matters, him not accepting the landlord’s decisions and explanations and him making what was considered ‘unreasonable requests’ at times, as set out in its ‘Unacceptable Behaviour Policy’, the crux of the issue still required addressing and there became a blurring of lines between this and the resident’s conduct and historical matters, which become unhelpfully entangled.
The understanding and empathic part of responding to a complaint was missed, with a lack of conveying its understanding of what the problem reported was and the impact the resident had repeatedly asserted the situation had had on him. There was also a lack of explanation of steps the landlord had taken to seek to address the issue – for example, there is brief reference to recording noise and noise monitoring equipment but no information as to when this was offered or what other steps or attempts it had made and when. Although it is clear that the resident did not engage with the landlord in respect of discussing the issue and visiting the property to carry out an inspection, as requested by it, in responding to the complaint it did not clearly set out what it had done and when and the outcome of this, with mostly broad statements of the resident not cooperating being made in both its complaints responses and elsewhere.
In the absence of a robust and clear chronology of recent events, circular correspondence continued, with the landlord stating the resident had not engaged and asking him to and with the resident engaging in his way; that is, asking the landlord how it was going to resolve the issue.
The landlord missed opportunities to de–escalate matters with enquiries (even by email), explanations and expectations management throughout. For instance, the landlord did not ask the resident what the noises he could hear were or the times and frequency of the noises; doing so would have helped to establish early on whether it was ordinary living noise he was hearing and also to rule out and ASB, if appropriate to do so. This would have also provided the opportunity for the landlord to explain the difference in this and other types of noise and what it could and could not do in respect of this. The opportunity to explain repairs and works versus improvement works was also missed. The correspondence in this case is extensive, yet says very little; the landlord did not effectively contain the complaint, nor respond in an inquiring and empathic manner, provide sufficient explanation or effectively manage expectations.
It was appropriate that the landlord did formally open a complaint when it did, with the resident clearly dissatisfied and with questions unanswered, however, the complaints responses were extensively delayed in accordance with the timescales set out in its policy, at both stages one and two of the complaints procedure, with insufficient updates throughout. Although the delayed acoustic report was unfortunate and outside of the landlord’s control, it did not do enough to keep the resident up to date in respect of this, or it’s later delay at stage two. The landlord appropriately recognised delay in its complaint handling, although its offer of £50 compensation in recognition of this was insufficient given the length of delay on both occasions and the other issues identified.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about noise transference.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

There was no maladministration by the landlord insofar as it offered to discuss the issue with the resident on a number of occasions, including to visit him at the property to do this, which were not engaged with by the resident. There is a reasonable expectation that a resident engage with issues raised, in order to seek to resolve them.
In the absence of this engagement, the landlord commissioned an independent acoustic survey which found that the property passed the tests for noise transference and that the property met the relevant Building Regulations. Consequently, the landlord was not obliged to soundproof the property, as this would amount to an improvement, rather than repair or essential works.
There was service failure by the landlord insofar as it failed to manage expectations and provide sufficient clarity and explanation in its correspondence and complaints responses. It lacked empathy and understanding in its replies and failed to adequately contain and manage the complaint.
The complaint responses were significantly delayed at both stages one and two of the complaints process, with no explanation given and the £50 in recognition of this was insufficient.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

The landlord to pay the resident £150 in respect of the service failures identified in its handling of the complaint. This amount is the total amount of compensation offered and encompasses the original £50.
The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order within four weeks of the date on this report.