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

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202126898)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126898

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

25 July 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 refers to the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a nursery beneath his property.
    2. Repairs to a broken washing machine.

 

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. The Ombudsman will not consider the complaint about any repairs and replacements to the washing machine in the resident’s property. As these are separate issues to the complaint raised through the landlord’s complaints policy, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect through its internal complaint procedure as in line with 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. If the resident wishes to pursue these issues, he will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint. The resident may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat on the third floor of an apartment complex comprising of similar properties. The nursery in question is located on the ground floor.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in June 2021 and stated that he had experienced continued noise disturbances from below his apartment that had affected his mental health and interfered with his ability to effectively have online interviews for jobs from home. The resident stated that he could hear the names of pupils being called from the nursery, through the walls of his apartment. He also stated that he could hear the children running up and down the stairs. The resident stated that he wished to be re-housed to an available property in the landlord’s portfolio, as a resolution to his complaint.
  3. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 7 July 2021. It apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident and stated that its independent noise surveyor had visited the resident’s property on 24 June 2021. The landlord stated that according to its surveyor’s report, there were no meaningful defects in the construction of the resident’s block, and that the issue may be linked to the resident having a hyper-sensitivity to noises associated with living in a city environment. It stated that it was unable to re-house the resident as he was not a social housing tenant and advised the resident to seek moving options through the local authority, ‘Rightmove’ or ‘Share-to-Buy’.  The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged that the noise had caused the resident some distress. It stated that it had carried out the necessary investigations, and could find no determinable cause for the resident’s concerns and issued a formal apology for the inconvenience the situation had caused the resident and for the time he had taken to pursue the matter.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on 9 July 2021, as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident stated that he had recordings of the noise disturbance that he experienced on a daily basis. He also advised that the noise he experienced each day had caused the hyper-sensitivity the surveyor had reported, and this was not caused by living in the city, as the landlord had suggested. The resident stated that he felt the landlord had not accurately drawn from the surveyor report.
  5. The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 16 July 2021. It maintained its position from its stage on response, and stated that its surveyor had only been able to register ‘day to day’ noises associated with living in a city environment. The landlord stated that it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint at this stage.
  6. In his complaint to this Service, the resident stated that he believed the surveyor had sided with the landlord, and he wished for the landlord to insulate his apartment to stop noise from the nursery entering his apartment. The resident also stated he would like the landlord to consider offering him compensation as a resolution to his complaint. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1.  As part of his complaint, the resident has said that his mental health has been affected by the excessive noise from the nursery. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his mental health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore we cannot determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise concerns and the resident’s mental health. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says 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.
  2. The resident stated that the noise issues affecting his property have been ongoing since 2018. The Ombudsman appreciates that this is a longstanding issue, however it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to consider events dating back to 2018. As a general principle the Ombudsman will consider events up to six months prior to a formal complaint being raised to the landlord, this is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out the rules which govern our service. Landlords are not expected to keep detailed records indefinitely and the landlord would not be expected to have much information about the noise dating back to 2018. For this reason, although the historic issues give context to the current complaint, the Ombudsman’s investigation does not consider any specific events prior to December 2020, which is six months before the resident complained to the landlord in June 2021.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as “Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.” It states that the landlord would respond to reports of ASB, in a timely manner, based on risk. The policy states that the initial assessment for reports meeting the threshold of ASB would determine case priority, response times and frequency of contact. It does not provide further details of timescales. The policy describes high priority cases as those which are likely to include imminent danger, violence, hate, crime or domestic abuse. Customer vulnerability will be a deciding factor when assessing case priority.
  2. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord has the responsibility to maintain and keep in good repair: inside walls, floors, ceilings, doors, door frames, hinges and skirting boards. The agreement states that the landlord is not responsible for painting and decorating the inside of the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a nursery beneath his property.

  1. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether the reported ASB occurred or not. Rather, our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to these reports were in accordance with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord was limited in the actions it could take in response to the resident’s noise reports, due to the nursery not being a tenant of the landlord. This means that the landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy that applies to its residents, would not apply to the nursery, as there is no contractual agreement between the landlord and the nursery. However, in this case, the landlord displayed reasonable action in efforts to resolve the resident’s concerns.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord regarding the noise disturbance on 17 June 2021. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord stated its surveyor had initially attempted to visit the resident’s property in September 2020. However, a total of four appointments were cancelled by the resident, due to a busy schedule. Whilst it is understandable that residents may not always be available to allow access, the landlord would not be responsible for any delays this may cause.  According to the evidence provided, the landlord appropriately continued to communicate with the resident in order to carry out the required investigations. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 24 June, 2021. It was reasonable for the landlord to send an independent noise surveyor to assess the resident’s property and investigate any potential problems with the construction of the building and conduct a sound test within the property. The landlord also acted appropriately on basing its findings on the outcome of the surveyor report. As an extra measure, it is recommended that the landlord contacts the nursery in order to discuss any actions that can be taken by the nursery, to lessen any further noise disturbance to its residents within the building.
  4. As part of his complaint, the resident requested to be moved into a different property as a resolution to the noise disturbance. The Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident permanently as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time, and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing. In this case, the landlord advised that it was unable to re-house the resident as he was a private tenant and not a social tenant. The landlord’s social housing properties are allocated through the local authorities housing list and the landlord does not control this list, it is controlled by the local authority. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to the local authority and other rehousing options. The landlord acted reasonably in offering the resident further support with his transfer request, via its housing officer. It is noted that the resident stated that he was due to vacate the property, however the details of this move has not been provided to this Service. It is recommended that the landlord continue to support the resident regarding his move from the property, for as long he remains a tenant of the landlord. 
  5.  Additionally, the resident requested for the landlord to consider soundproofing his apartment, as part of a solution to the noise nuisance he experienced. However, although the landlord is obliged to maintain the property and keep it in a good state of repair, it is not obliged to carry out improvements. This is in line with the tenancy agreement, which states that the landlord it is not responsible for improvements to the property and soundproofing would be regarded as an improvement. For this reason, the landlord’s response in which it declined the resident’s request to install soundproofing was reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports concerning noise nuisance from a nursery beneath the property.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contact the nursery downstairs from the resident’s property in order to discuss any actions that can be taken by the nursery to lessen any further noise disturbance to its residents.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord continue to support the resident regarding his move from the property, for as long he remains a tenant of the landlord.