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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202104088)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104088

Clarion Housing Association Limited

5 September 2021


Our Approach

 

  1. 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 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.

 

  1. 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:

 

3.1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

 

3.2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Background and Summary of Events

 

Background

 

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and has an assured shorthold tenancy.

 

  1. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy says that ASB can take many forms, including noise nuisance. The policy’s ASB definition includes conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises. The policy says that household noise is not considered ASB.

 

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will investigate cases of noise within five working days when its threshold is met. For category two (noise), the threshold is: three separate incidents reported in seven days by the same household; five separate incidents reported in 28 days by the same household; or two separate incidents reported in 28 days by different households. The landlord’s ASB policy says that the landlord will consider a range of interventions to deter and prevent ASB.

 

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will make an award of £50 to £250 for service failure where there has been some impact on the complainant, including failure to meet service standards for actions and responses, but where the failure had no significant impact.

 

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy, in place at the time of the complaint, says that it operates a two-stage procedure. The first stage being the complaint response which it aims to resolve within 10 working days, and the second stage being a peer review, which it aims to resolve within 20 working days.

 

Summary of events

 

  1. Whilst investigating the resident’s previous report of a leak from her upstairs neighbour’s bathroom, the resident also advised the landlord that she could hear a noise from the neighbour’s bathroom after it had been refurbished in mid-2019. In January 2020, the landlord attended the resident’s property and investigated the leak and the noise by testing all the outlets in the bathroom of the upstairs property, and found no evidence of a noise. 

 

  1. This Service issued a report on 27 November 2020 about the leak. In that report, it was noted that the resident had complained about noise nuisance from her neighbour and we asked the landlord to confirm with the resident if she wanted to raise a report about that, and investigate it accordingly.

 

  1. The resident and the landlord then communicated on several occasions about the noise. The landlord said that the matter had been investigated when its surveyor carried out an inspection, and an issue had not been found. It therefore did not think this was a repair issue. The resident disagreed and did not want the matter to be dealt with under the landlord’s ASB procedure. The landlord advised the resident to record the noise, and complete diary sheets.

 

  1. The landlord’s internal emails of 8 January 2021 refer to its surveyor confirming that on the previous visit he did turn the jets on in the bathroom. It was also noted that a video was taken of this and shown to the resident at the time and she had agreed that it was not noisy. 

 

  1. On 20 January 2021, the landlord decided to open an ASB noise nuisance case.

 

  1. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 January 2021. It said the matter had been fully investigated, and no noise had been found. It said it would look into whether there had been any tenancy breach by the neighbour regarding the installation of the bathroom. Internal landlord correspondence then confirmed that the resident’s neighbour’s bathroom had been an approved adaptation.

 

  1. The resident responded later that day to say she was not happy the case had been considered as an ASB case rather than a repair. She also contacted the landlord the following day to say she did not think the surveyor had turned on the jets in her neighbour’s bathroom on the day of the inspection.

 

  1. Internal landlord email correspondence at this time confirmed that the ASB case was to be closed. It is not clear, however, whether this information was shared with the resident.

 

  1. On 30 January 2021 the resident told the landlord that she could not sleep because of the noise coming from her neighbour’s bathroom. She also said her diary sheets were full, and the noise always occurred early in the morning and late at night.

 

  1. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 4 February 2021.It said that historically visits had been made to both properties and it had been unable to find any noise in the neighbour’s bathroom. It noted the resident’s neighbour had a small jacuzzi which it said was quiet when switched on. The landlord did not think there was any repair issue, but it advised the resident to keep diary sheets to track the noise pattern. However, it offered the resident £50 for the response time being outside its published timescales.

 

  1. On 8 February 2021, the resident requested her complaint be escalated to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The resident and the landlord had a phone call on 25 February 2021, and the resident advised it that she remained unhappy. She said she disputed the surveyor’s findings that there was not a link between the noise and her neighbour’s adapted bathroom.

 

  1. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 February 2021 to acknowledge her request to escalate her complaint that she had made on 8 February 2021. It apologised for the delay in dealing with her request, and confirmed it would aim to respond within 20 working days.

 

  1. The landlord updated the resident on 17 March 2021 to let her know it was not yet able to provide its formal response to her complaint, and would update her again if a response had not been finalised by 26 March 2021.

 

  1. On 22 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say she had requested that it ensure the neighbour’s jacuzzi was not used again, but it had been used that day. She wanted the landlord to have the jacuzzi removed.

 

  1. The landlord issued its stage two peer review complaint response on 25 March 2021. It said:

 

23.1. As part of its stage one investigation, it had attended the neighbouring property on 23 January 2021. Its operatives could find no evidence of noise coming from the water outlets or pumps. They also confirmed that the bathroom adaptations were correctly fitted and the appropriate approvals for the installations were in place.

 

23.2. Its stage one response confirmed that the level of noise the resident was experiencing was the result of daily living sounds. The resident had been advised to keep diary sheets to track the noise pattern which would help determine if further investigation was required.

 

23.3. However, it recognised that the resident was suffering from the noise she was hearing, and was considering whether the ASB policy could be started. It confirmed a letter had been sent to the resident on 8 March 2021 requesting further details if the noise persisted and asked her to discuss the issue with her neighbour.

 

23.4. Since then, it had been in touch with the resident and sent her some further diary sheets to complete. During its call with the resident on 5 March 2021, the resident had advised it there had been no further incidents in the previous ten days. The landlord encouraged her to complete the diary sheets supplied.

 

23.5. The landlord accepted that it should have revisited the noise issue with her sooner (following the Ombudsman’s previous report in November 2020), and so upheld that part of her complaint. It said that options like sound proofing to manage noise from everyday living were limited, but if it determined that the noise exceeded reasonable thresholds, then it confirmed it would look to investigate the issue further.

 

23.6. It had arranged for a staff member to contact the resident each week over the following month to discuss any noise nuisance and to check on the diary sheets sent to her. It confirmed that if the diary sheets demonstrated ongoing noise, then it would be able to install sound monitoring equipment upon lockdown restrictions being eased.

 

23.7. In recognition of its service failures, it offered the resident £75 compensation. This was broken down as £50 for failure to meet service standards (not responding to the noise reports earlier), and £25 for the delay in responding to a peer review.

 

23.8. It confirmed that it was taking away from the complaint that it needed to follow its service standards when it received reports of ASB or noise nuisance within the relevant timescales.

 

  1. The resident responded to the landlord on 26 March 2021. She said she remained dissatisfied, and that none of the investigation had involved her. She pointed out that before the jacuzzi had been installed, there was no noise from the neighbouring property. The resident thought the landlord should visit the property with a plumber and someone from the local authority.

 

  1. The resident brought her complaint to this Service. She said she continued to experience the noise nuisance and did not feel the landlord was taking the matter seriously. She said the noise did not exist before the bathroom was adapted, and the noise was loud enough to wake her up. The resident said she thought the landlord was aware of the cause of the noise and was not willing to help, and was instead trying to deal with the matter as an ASB case to avoid doing any repair, which she objected to. Finally, the resident said she thought her neighbour was now using the jets at their highest level deliberately, which she thought was a “racist act”.

 

  1. In the landlord’s internal emails of June 2021, it said the resident was on its list for sound monitoring equipment to be installed, and that this had been provisionally booked for 9 July 2021. It is not known If this sound monitoring process has now taken place.

 

Assessment and Findings

 

Noise reports

 

  1. When the resident initially raised concerns about the noise nuisance, the landlord did not deal with the matter as an ASB case, and so it did not follow its ASB procedure. Given that the resident attributed the noise nuisance to the adaptations made to her neighbour’s bathroom, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat the matter as a potential repair issue in the first instance.

 

  1. The landlord arranged for its surveyor to visit the resident’s property and the neighbouring property in 2020, to check the noise levels made by the neighbour’s bathroom. The surveyor thought the jets were quiet when in use, and so did not think there was a repair needed. According to the landlord’s internal emails of January 2021, the resident accepted this at the time. However, in the landlord’s stage one complaint response, the landlord also said its operatives revisited the property in January 2021 whilst it was investigating the resident’s complaint, and again could find no evidence of noise from the installation.

 

  1. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the bathroom installation, and to use this opportunity to consider whether the jets from the jacuzzi/bath area amounted to a noise nuisance. The resident said she does not think the surveyor put on the jets, but the surveyor said the jets were switched on previously and a video was shown to the resident of this. As the landlord could hear no evidence of noise nuisance, it was reasonable for it not to carry out any repairs.

 

  1. However, as the resident continued to report noise nuisance from her neighbour, the landlord decided to deal with the matter through its ASB procedure. The resident did not want it to do this, and the frequency of her noise reports did not meet the threshold for the landlord to consider the issue under the ASB policy. However, the landlord demonstrated a reasonable exercise of discretion by taking this route. It had investigated and identified no repair issue. By considering the case through its ASB process, the landlord was able to make further enquiries, consider resolution options and identify if any breaches of tenancy had taken place.

 

  1. However, in order for the landlord to take action against the resident’s neighbour in line with its ASB policy, it would first of all need to be satisfied that there was a noise nuisance taking place. The landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets, and confirmed it would arrange for noise monitoring equipment to be installed at her property. It also arranged for a staff member to contact the resident each week over the following month to check if the noise nuisance was continuing. That was a reasonable and proportionate response.

 

  1. When the landlord issued its stage two complaint response, it was prevented from installing the noise monitoring equipment at that time because of the national lockdown in place. Though it said it would arrange for this to be done once lockdown restrictions lifted, which was fair in the circumstances.

 

  1. As the resident had also raised concerns about her neighbour possibly breaching the tenancy agreement by having the adapted bathroom installed, the landlord also looked into this. However, it found that there had not been any breach of the tenancy agreement, and relevant approvals had been obtained for the installation.

 

  1. When the landlord issued its final response on the resident’s complaint, it partially upheld the complaint and offered the resident £50 compensation for its failure to adhere to follow up on the noise issues following the Ombudsman’s November 2020 report. It is noted that the landlord initially opened an ASB case in January 2021 and the resident was aware of this, but then it seemingly shut it down without resolving the matter. Then when the landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 25 March 2021, it said it was considering whether the ASB policy could be started.

 

  1. Since the landlord had already opened an ASB case, it should have dealt with the matter under its ASB policy. Though given that the landlord had already asked the resident to complete diary sheets, it does not seem that this delay negatively impacted the resident. However, the landlord was not clear with the resident about when the ASB case had been opened, and which timescales it should adhere to. It is considered that the £50 compensation it offered was fair to reflect any confusion caused to the resident, and this was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

 

Complaints Handling

 

  1. The remaining £25 compensation offered to the resident by the landlord was for the delay in its response to the resident’s request for a peer review. The resident requested this on 8 February 2021, and the landlord did not formally acknowledge this until 26 February 2021. The response was then provided on 25 March 2021, which was outside the landlord’s 20 working day timeframe. The £25 compensation was reasonable to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress which, in the ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily in respect of:

 

37.1.                   The landlord’s response to the resident’s ongoing reports of noise nuisance; and

 

37.2.                   The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Reasons

 

  1. The resident raised concerns about noise coming from her neighbour’s bathroom whilst the jacuzzi jets were in use. The landlord investigated this on two occasions, which was appropriate. However, it found the installation to be working correctly, and did not think the jacuzzi was making a loud noise. It therefore could not carry out a repair.

 

  1. Though as the resident continued to report noise nuisance, the landlord decided to open an ASB case, which was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. The landlord then provided the resident with diary sheets to complete, and also arranged for a staff member to contact her each week for the month after it issued its stage two complaint response, to see if the noise nuisance was continuing. Finally, the landlord agreed to install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property. These were reasonable and proportionate responses, so that the landlord could establish what noise the resident was hearing.

 

  1. However, the landlord was not clear with the resident about whether it was dealing with the matter as an ASB case, and it should not have shut it down when it did. The £50 the landlord offered the resident for its failure to adhere to its service standards was reasonable and proportionate to the detriment experienced as a result of its acknowledged service failures.

 

  1. The landlord also offered the resident £25 compensation for its late response after she requested a peer review under its complaint handling process. This was also a reasonable and proportionate amount of compensation given the extent of the delay.

 

Recommendations

 

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the £75 compensation previously offered.

 

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord to arrange for the noise monitoring equipment to be installed.