Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202101425)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101425

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

11 January 2023

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 concerns the landlord’s response to:
1. ASB reports and the request for hotel costs.
2. Concerns regarding the level of support provided.
3. Reports of damage to the bedroom and kitchen ceilings due to a leak.
The related complaint.

Background and Summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The tenancy started in 1997. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the third floor of the building. The landlord is a Council.
The resident has vulnerabilities. The landlord’s records note that the resident’s vulnerabilities are osteoarthritis. The resident is also in her eighties. The resident’s mother is her representative.
The family living in the upstairs flat which are the subject of the resident’s ASB reports, moved out of the upstairs flat in June 2021.
In her communications to the landlord including on 14 December 2020, the representative said the failure of the landlord to take timely action to address the situation with noise/ASB had a psychological effect on her mother and caused distress to her.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As this type of claim is more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this allegation will not be investigated.
A complaint regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports concerning the upstairs’ neighbour was previously determined by the Ombudsman under case reference 202004145 on 31 March 2021. This investigation considered the timeframe up to the landlord’s final response dated 23 July 2020 and noted that in August 2020 the landlord confirmed it was “actively looking for suitable accommodation” for the upstairs’ neighbour. This review therefore will investigate the timeframe from 7 December 2020 when the representative contacted the landlord regarding an update of its progress with finding alternative accommodation for the upstairs neighbour. This is within a reasonable timeframe of the representative’s subsequent formal complaint raised on 29 March 2021.

Summary of Events

On 7 December 2020 the representative contacted the landlord regarding an update of its progress with finding alternative accommodation for the upstairs’ neighbour. She referred to her call with the landlord the previous week and said she was dissatisfied with its suggestion that her mother stay with her whilst it continued to look for alternative accommodation for the neighbour.
The landlord responded on the same day explaining it understood the difficulties she and her mother were going through but regrettably it did not know how long it would take to move the upstairs’ neighbour as it was impossible to predict availability of properties from its housing stock. It said that as soon as it found a suitable property, it would be matched to the family.
On 8 December 2020, the representative notified the landlord of an incident involving alleged verbal threats from the upstairs’ neighbour against the resident. The police were involved and the resident provided the landlord with a police case reference number.
On 11 December 2020, the landlord advised the resident during a telephone call that the neighbour would likely be moving out of the upstairs flat by the end of January 2021.
The landlords’ internal communications during December 2020 show it was taking steps to secure temporary accommodation for the upstairs’ neighbour whilst it sourced an alternative permanent property for them.
On 14 December 2020, the representative contacted the landlord referring to her call with it on 11 December 2020 when it agreed to move the upstairs’ neighbour to temporary accommodation by the end of January 2021. She also reported that the resident had been woken up at 5am that morning by: “heavy stamping, running, a sequence of tapping, knocking and what sounded like heavy furniture being dropped onto laminate flooring”. The representative told the landlord that she sympathised that the child had a “behavioural condition” but said she had no alternative but to move her mother into a hotel in order to alleviate the stress the ASB was putting her under.
The representative said that the landlord had failed in its duty of care owed to her mother as it had not provided adequate support to a vulnerable tenant. She had incurred £324.00 for her mother’s eight nights hotel stay and forwarded this invoice to the landlord. The representative also complained about a manager previously suggesting her mother purchase headsets to wear whilst watching TV to avoid disrupting her upstairs’ neighbour. She believed this member of staff was “bias” against them due to his own personal experience of a child with the same behavioural condition.
On 21 December 2020, the landlord’s Housing Officer (HO) told the representative that it was not able to reimburse her for the hotel cost incurred. They understood why she had placed her mother in a hotel, however, advised that the property was habitable. The HO said they regretted that the resident had been impacted by the noise and advised her to inform them if there were any further incidents involving the neighbour.
The representative replied to the landlord on the same date disputing that the property was habitable as she said that the continuous disruption experienced over the past two years had taken its toll on her mother. She said the landlord had acted more favourably towards the upstairs neighbour than the resident. The representative also stated they reported a few months ago that her mother’s bedroom ceiling and walls were soaked in what appeared to be urine coming from the upstairs’ flat and said they had now noticed similar in the living room. She attached photos of the bedroom and living room.
On 23 December 2020, the landlord’s HO advised that they had discussed the request for reimbursement of hotel expenses with his manager and reiterated that the landlord was unable to meet this request. They regretted she felt it had not supported her mother, however the landlord had taken action and her neighbour had not been given preferential treatment. It was working to rehouse the neighbour as quickly as possible so that the mother’s living conditions were improved.
Regarding damage to the ceilings, it apologised for the repairs team not making contact with her and advised they would check the property above for any leaks as soon as possible.
On 7 January 2021, the representative reiterated her concern to the landlord about the damage to the living room and kitchen ceilings.
On 15 January 2021, the Neighbourhood Services Manager (NSM) advised the representative during a call that it was unlikely the upstairs’ neighbour would be moved out by the end of January 2021. The representative emailed the landlord later that day advising that given the ASB and verbal threatening behaviour, this news was disheartening. She said they were also upset about its refusal to provide any financial support in respect of her mother’s hotel stay. She confirmed it was agreed that the NSM would not contact them about this issue until he had a definite date of the move so as to avoid further disappointment.
On 22 January 2021, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property to assess if there was damage caused by a suspected leak. The landlord’s repair records show a works order was raised following the inspection for the affected areas to be “prepared and decorated….to match existing colour”. This had a target date of 25 February 2021.
On 22 January 2021, the representative told the landlord that she was concerned about the surveyor’s comment that it needed to “keep an eye on” the living room ceiling. She also expressed dissatisfaction about the extent of the inspection as she was told the upstairs’ flat would also be inspected.
On 28 January 2021, the landlord’s HO said that its surveyor had advised there was a minor leak, most likely from the radiator of the property above. Further, that the patch in the ceiling was dry and there were no signs of an active leak at the time of inspection. He has also advised the property was safe for the resident to reside in and there were no concerns about any structural problems. Its HO explained that an inspection of the upstairs property had not been scheduled as the surveyor did not think this was required.
The landlord’s internal records indicate that it was in communication with the resident’s MP in February 2021 regarding allegations of ASB from the upstairs’ neighbour. On 3 February 2021, it explained to her MP that a child lived in the upstairs’ flat who had complex special needs and it was working with the neighbour to try to minimise the noise. It explained that because of the family’s complex needs, it was taking longer than it had hoped, to find a suitable property for them to move into.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 17 March 2021, it advised Victim Support (VS) that it was sympathetic about the effect the noise was having on the resident. It reiterated that to resolve the situation, it would permanently move the neighbour and in the meantime, it was actively looking for a temporary property for the family to move to. It explained however that it was a complex case as it involved a child with developmental conditions. The landlord said that it would inform the representative when the family had been moved.
Its response also advised that following concerns raised by the representative, a surveyor had visited the property in January 2021 but could not find any structural issues or any active leaks.
On 29 March 2021, the representative raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the “on-going ASB dispute”. The representative stated that:
1. She was very disappointed and saddened to know that the landlord/housing officer had failed to contact her mother to check on her well-being considering her age, vulnerability and declining health. Her mother has had no support or contact from the HO. She strongly believed her mother had been discriminated against based on her age and race.
2. They were told by the landlord on 10 December 2020 that the neighbour would be moving in January 2021, however, this had not happened. This had raised her mother’s hopes and has caused her further distress.
3. The landlord has not offered her mother any temporary accommodation whilst the ASB continued and had not provided a timescale for moving the neighbours.
4. She had concerns about the structure of the living room and bedroom ceilings and the contractor’s comments that they “needed to keep an eye on this” – were disconcerting.
5. The landlord had not attended to witness the ASB despite promising to do so previously.
6. She was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to reimburse her mother’s hotel costs. She did not agree that the property was habitable. She stayed with her mother at the property for 12 weeks prior to deciding it was necessary for her to move out due to the ASB. She reiterated that no support was provided by the landlord.
7. The landlord’s HO continued suggestions to her mother that she should consider “sheltered housing” is a “bullying tactic”. She has asked the HO to stop suggesting this but they had continued to suggest this to third parties.
8. A manager at the landlord at one point asked she and her mother to purchase and wear headphones when watching television in the property so as not to disturb the child in her upstairs’ neighbour property as they were autistic and did not like television noise. This was unacceptable behaviour by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised the representative that it aimed to respond no later than 21 April 2021.
On 20 April 2021, the representative advised the landlord that further noise nuisance from the upstairs’ flat had been experienced on 17 April 2021 which she had reported to the Council’s Noise Nuisance team.
On 26 April 2021, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the representative. This stated that in regard to support from its HO, it was sorry that she felt he had not provided adequate support regarding her situation. As she was her mother’s representative, most of his contact had been with her, rather than with the resident directly. She had previously agreed for its HO to only contact her when there was an update regarding the upstairs’ neighbour’s move. Unfortunately, as there had not been a further development in the neighbour moving to alternative accommodation, he had not been able to update her about this. However, he had been in communication with VS who were advocating on her mother’s behalf. The landlord stated it was reviewing the medical evidence VS had supplied.
It explained that its HO had previously suggested that the resident was transferred to support accommodation as a possible solution to the ASB. This offer was declined and since being told that this suggestion had upset her mother, its HO had not mentioned this to her, however, he did tell VS about this, who asked for an update about the action taken. It was sorry that she felt the resident been discriminated against because of her age and race however its HO had regularly discussed the resident’s case with his manager.
Regarding the allegation of noise nuisance, as part of the noise nuisance investigation prior to the Covid-19 lockdown, its HO made a referral to the Council’s professional witness officer to attend the resident’s property to carry out observations. Unfortunately, due to the pandemic, all home visits by the professional witness officer were suspended. The landlord confirmed that it would let her know once the home visits resume, so they could carry out observations in the resident’s home.
Regarding the request for financial assistance, it regretted that her mother felt it necessary to stay in a hotel because of the disturbances, however, it was unable to reimburse her for the costs incurred as requested because they made this decision and it did not arrange the accommodation.
Regarding alternative accommodation, it reiterated that the temporary property it initially identified for the upstairs’ neighbour did not meet their housing needs, it was unable to move them by the end of January 2021. It confirmed it was still looking for an alternative property for them as a priority. It was unable to agree to the request for the resident to be temporarily decanted to furnished accommodation until the neighbour moved, as it was unable to confirm at this stage when her neighbour would be moving. However, its offer to permanently move the resident remained open and if she would like to consider a permanent move, then it could agree to assist and place her into band one on its housing register. The offer would be somewhere in her area of preference and not sheltered housing as advised. If the resident would like to accept this offer, it could place her into temporary accommodation, while she waited for her permanent move, to avoid any further noise disturbance from her neighbour.
Regarding the damage to the ceilings, its surveyor inspected the property on 22 January 2021 and reported no concerns about the structural safety of the property. The surveyor said there were signs of a previous minor leak from the property above, but there were no signs of an active leak. The upstairs’ neighbour had advised that due to her child’s behavioural issues, he splashed considerable amounts of water when being bathed. The water from this may be entering the property.
It advised that based on its findings it was not upholding the complaint as it had followed the correct procedure when dealing with the case.
On 4 May 2021, the resident’s social worker contacted the landlord asking for an update regarding the ongoing issue with the resident’s neighbour. They attached an email received from the representative dated 28 April 2021 whom advised that her mother was temporarily staying with her due to not being able to return to the property. The representative was very concerned that the situation was affecting her mother’s health. She said the landlord was not taking her case sufficiently seriously and had not been sympathetic or proactive in resolving the issue.
On 5 May 2021, the landlord replied to the resident’s social worker providing details regarding the resident’s case including that it was still looking for a suitable property for the upstairs’ neighbour. It advised that it had offered a management move to the resident but said this had been declined.
On 12 May 2021, the representative submitted an online stage two complaint to the landlord. She stated that she was dissatisfied with:
1. The lack of communication from the HO and level of support provided whilst her mother had remained in the hotel.
2. The landlord’s refusal to reimburse the hotel cost. She disputed its suggestion that the property was habitable.
3. The failure by the landlord to attend the property to witness the noise.
4. The ‘ripple effect’ on the living room and bedroom ceilings due to possible water leakage that its surveyor had shown concern about.
5. She had appointed VS to contact the landlord on her mother’s behalf as her communications were being “ignored”. They had provided the landlord with medical evidence.
6. She was unhappy that the HO had mentioned sheltered housing to VS as this was not something her mother wanted.
7. She was dissatisfied with the suggestion made by a manager that they purchase and wear headphones so as not to disturb the upstairs’ neighbour.
The escalation request was acknowledged by the landlord on 17 May 2021 when it advised a full response would be provided by 10 June 2021.
On 20 May 2020, the landlord advised that whilst it was sorry the representative was dissatisfied with the stage one response, having read the concerns she raised, it considered these had already been addressed in its stage one response. It also referred to her previous complaint that had already been determined by the Ombudsman. On this basis, it was closing her complaint. It confirmed that she could escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman.
The representative contacted the Ombudsman on 21 May 2021 regarding the response received from the landlord and on 20 May 2021 and the Ombudsman contacted the landlord requesting that it provide a final response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord advised the resident’s social worker on 2 June 2021 that the upstairs’ neighbour had now vacated the upstairs’ flat.
On 3 June 2021, the representative reiterated her concern about the “ripple-effect” damage caused to the bedroom and living room ceilings. She said this needed to be repaired before her mother could return to the property.
The landlord’s surveyor visited the property on 15 June 2021 and raised works to address the damage to the bedroom ceiling.
On 4 August 2021. The landlord provided a stage two complaint response to the resident advising:
1. Regarding contact with the resident whilst she was in the hotel, the main point of contact throughout had been the representative who had always indicated she was advocating on her behalf. Its NSM had explained during the call with her on 15 January 2021 the reason why it was unlikely that the neighbour would be moved out by the end of January 2021. It was agreed that its NSM would not contact her or the resident until it had a definite date for the upstairs neighbour was moving. It had no records of the representative asking that it contact the resident whilst at the hotel.
2. Unfortunately, it did take some time for it to find suitable accommodation for the upstairs’ family as they had a high level of special needs. They had now been successfully placed into temporary accommodation until it found suitable permanent accommodation for them.
3. Regarding the request to be reimbursed the cost of the resident’s hotel stay, it had not agreed to this and did not believe this was necessary. It had first advised of this position in December 2020.
The landlord stated it was sorry they had experienced problems and were dissatisfied with how they were handled and it was sorry for any inconvenience this had caused.
On 8 August 2021, the representative told the Ombudsman she was dissatisfied with the final response as there were a number of concerns raised not answered and there was no resolution in terms of the compensation for the hotel costs they had incurred and for travel from her home to the property.
The repair landlord’s records indicate it repaired the damage to the bedroom ceiling in late August 2021.
On 15 September 2021, the representative told the Ombudsman that she was unhappy about the noise being caused by the ongoing void works being carried out by landlord in the upstairs’ flat. Further, on 9 December 2021 the landlord provided a stage one response to a complaint raised by the representative regarding further repairs needed at the property and repairs carried out at the upstairs’ property during the void period. As there is no evidence of these complaint exhausting the landlord’s complaints process, the Ombudsman is also unable to consider these issues in this review.

Policies

The landlord’s ASB policy on its website states:
1. It works in partnership with the police and other agencies to tackle crime and ASB to make the landlord a safe place to live, work and visit.
2. ASB cases will be assessed and categorised as a priority one or priority two. For cases involving its properties, priority one cases will be managed by the ASB team and priority two cases will be managed by the housing officer.
The landlord’s decant policy states it will provide alternative accommodation for residents when accommodation has become unsuitable to live in. The landlord’s examples include: ‘acts of God’ e.g. fire, flood, extreme weather conditions; property becoming uninhabitable because of serious disrepair/structural failings and; major/complex/ restricted works are being undertaken resulting in the accommodation being temporarily unsafe for habitation. Its policy applies to major, planned and emergency works which cannot be undertaken with the tenant in situ.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to ASB reports and the request for hotel costs

Our previous report under case reference 202004145 noted that the neighbour’s child residing in the upstairs’ flat had a “behavioural condition” which the landlord acknowledged was the cause of the “high noise levels” impacting the resident. It noted that the landlord recognised the difficult situation this put the resident in but acknowledged that the circumstances of the perpetrator was also “difficult”. The report found no evidence to support the allegation that the noise was being made to cause annoyance but noted the landlord’s advice to the resident’s MP in August 2020 that it was: “actively looking for suitable accommodation (for the upstairs’ neighbour) and hoped to arrange this as quickly as possible”.
It is clear from this review that the landlord had not moved the upstairs’ neighbour by early December 2020, however, it explained to the resident that the timeframe for moving them was dependent on availability from its housing stock which it said was difficult to predict. Bearing in mind landlords have limited available housing stock, which then have to be matched with the particular needs or circumstances of a resident(s), the lack of any move after four months, is understandable and does not establish any failure by the landlord.
However, the landlord’s internal communications show that on being informed about an incident on 8 December 2020 involving alleged verbal threats from the neighbour against the resident, it immediately sought to identify possible temporary accommodation for the neighbour. On 11 December 2020, the landlord told the representative that the neighbour would likely be moved out by the end of January 2021.
Therefore, whilst under no obligation to do so, by looking for temporary accommodation for the neighbour until such time suitable permanent accommodation could be found shows the landlord was willing to take further steps in order to expedite a resolution to the situation. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have also investigated the 8 December 2020 ASB report for example by contacting the police whom had been involved in the incident or by putting the allegations to the neighbour to understand their perspective in order to decide the best course of action to follow. There is no evidence of it doing this, risk assessing or of it categorising the priority of this report in accordance with its ASB policy. On balance, its failure to take such action, constitutes a failure in the service provided by the landlord.
Soon after this incident on 14 December 2020, the resident moved into a hotel as the representative reported to the landlord that she was left with “no alternative” after her mother had experienced noise nuisance earlier that morning causing her further stress which was impacting her health. In response to her request for it to reimburse hotel costs of £324 (eight days), the landlord declined on the basis that the noise and ASB issues did not render the property uninhabitable and it was the resident’s own decision to move out of the property.
Under its decant policy, the landlord has a duty to provide alternative accommodation where a property has become uninhabitable and need of major, planned or emergency works. As there is no reference to noise/ASB reports in its decant policy and because there is a lack of evidence to establish the property was in “serious disrepair” or uninhabitable, the landlord was not under any obligation to temporarily decant the resident due to the noise nuisance being experienced. Therefore, by refusing to reimburse the hotel costs, on balance, the landlord did not act outside of its decant policy or unreasonably.
The landlord advised the representative on 15 January 2021 that the temporary accommodation it had initially identified for the upstairs’ neighbour, turned out not be suitable for their housing needs and therefore the move was unlikely to take place by the end of January 2021. The landlord’s internal communications confirm these events. Therefore, whilst the resident was understandably unhappy about the move not taking place within the timeframe advised, as this was due to factors outside of the landlord’s control, on balance, it does not establish any service failure by the landlord.
The representative requested during her call with the landlord on 15 January 2021 that it did not contact her about this issue until such time it had a definite move date to avoid further disappointed. Following this on 2 June 2021, the landlord advised the resident’s social worker that the upstairs’ neighbour had moved out. Therefore, the length of time taken to move the neighbour was much longer than initially indicated to the resident, however, it did provide updates when contacted by the resident’s MP and VS during this timeframe. It also confirmed in its stage one response that it was still actively looking for another property for the neighbour and that it would inform the resident when they had moved.
It is noted that during the majority of this timeframe the resident was staying at a hotel and at the representative’s home because of the disruption caused by the high levels of noise. As such, this Service acknowledges the significant inconvenience caused by this situation. However, whilst the delay by the landlord in finding suitable alternative accommodation for the neighbour is unfortunate, this was due to the complex needs of the neighbours’ family limiting the type of property it could move them to. Therefore, as previously stated, this is not indicative of any fault on the part of the landlord. Furthermore, as the landlord’s decant policy does not require it to offer a decant on this basis, it is not responsible to reimburse the cost of the resident’s extended hotel stay or travel costs.
It is evident that the landlord had previously offered to permanently move the resident as a resolution to the situation but as that was not something the resident wanted, it progressed moving the neighbour to resolve the situation which was a reasonable approach to take in the circumstances. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord reiterated the option of a permanent move for the resident confirming it would place her in band one of its housing register to facilitate this. It also offered to place her in temporary accommodation whilst she waited for a permanent move if she accepted its offer in this regard.
Whilst this Service understands the resident had valid reasons for not wanting a (permanent) move, the landlord’s willingness to offer an alternative resolution demonstrates it was taking the ASB/noise complaint seriously and was committed to providing a resolution.
In summary there was one instance of it not following its ASB policy, however, overall the landlord acted reasonably when responding to ASB reports.

Level of support provided

In the stage one and two complaints, the representative raised concerns regarding the level of support provided by the landlord, in particular the landlord’s lack of contact with the resident whilst she was staying in the hotel over several months. She also alleged that landlord’s lack of support and care provided to the resident was discriminatory based on her age and race and that its mention to VS of moving her mother into “sheltered housing” was “a bullying tactic”.
It is unclear from the landlord’s ASB policy (on its website) what, if any additional support it provides to vulnerable complainants. However, in the resident’s case, it was aware of her vulnerabilities and on being informed that she had moved to a hotel in December 2020 due to the impact of the noise and alleged ASB was having on her, on balance, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have taken steps to check if she (or the representative) were in need of additional support at that time.
There is no evidence of the landlord making a referral to Adult Social Services (ASS) or asking them if this was needed. It is evident that the representative herself sought support from a number of agencies/third parties including VS and the resident’s MP who contacted the landlord over the subsequent months on the resident’s behalf regarding the ongoing situation. A referral to ASS was also made by the Council’s Noise Nuisance team in April 2021 following contact from the representative at that time.
Whilst the evidence shows that the landlord appropriately engaged with support agencies during the timeframe reviewed as per its ASB policy, on balance it did not take sufficient or prompt steps itself to ensure the resident was receiving sufficient support whilst the situation remain unresolved.
In its complaint responses the landlord pointed out that the representative had asked on 15 January 2021 not to be contacted until such time it had a date for the neighbours’ move. However, due to the extended delay in arranging a move and in view of the resident’s known vulnerabilities, as previously stated it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have made efforts to contact the resident (or the representative) to check on the resident’s well-being whilst it continued to work on providing the resolution agreed. On balance, this omission was a failure in the service provided.
However, this review found no evidence to suggest the landlord had treated the resident in such a way it discriminated against her on the grounds of her age or race. Furthermore, the landlord’s explanation for mentioning sheltered housing to VS was reasonable and there is no evidence its actions in this regard amounted to “bullying”.

Reports of damage to the bedroom and living room ceilings due to a leak.

In response to a concern raised with the landlord on 21 December 2020 and 7 January 2021 regarding “a ripple effect” caused to the bedroom and living room ceilings by a leak, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend on 22 January 2021 to investigate this issue. The landlord’s internal records show the surveyor identified signs of a previous leak coming from the upstairs’ flat which was found to be inactive. The landlord confirmed this to the resident shortly after the inspection and advised this was thought to be as a result of radiator leak. Its repair records show the landlord raised a job for the areas affected by the leak to be “prepared and decorated” which had a target date of 25 February 2021.
By arranging an inspection to assess the reported damage to the ceilings, the landlord acted appropriately however the repairs raised to address this were not completed by the target date. In her formal complaint dated 29 March 2021, the resident raised the matter again and said she was concerned the ceilings had not been repaired however in its stage one response, the landlord only reiterated the surveyor’s finding that it was not an active leak and it did not mention the repair job that had been previously raised. Therefore, its failure to complete the repair within the target timescale or progress it when the representative subsequently complained about this, constitutes a failure in the service provided.
After the representative raised the issue again on 12 May and on 3 June 2021, the landlord’s surveyor re-attended on 15 June 2021. As a result of this inspection, the surveyor raised works to repair the “damaged” ceiling coating within the bedroom. The repair landlord’s records indicate this work was carried out in late August 2021, however, this evidence also indicates redecoration of the ceiling was not completed until at least November 2021.
Therefore, there was an unreasonable delay by the landlord in progressing the repairs identified as needed to the bedroom ceiling due to damage caused by a previous leak from the upstairs flat. It did not acknowledge this in the final response nor offer redress to the resident for the stress and inconvenience caused by its failure to complete repairs to the bedroom ceiling within a reasonable timeframe. Although the representative reported the issue which affected the living room ceiling, it is unclear from the landlord’s records or communications if a repair to the living room ceiling was also completed. On this basis, an order has been included below for the landlord to confirm to this Service whether or not a repair to the living room ceiling is outstanding.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two stage complaints process requiring the landlord to provide a response at stage one within 10 working days and a response at stage two within 20 working days.
In her formal complaint and escalation request, the representative raised a concern about advice they received from one of the landlord’s managers to purchase headphones to watch TV so the noise from it does not disturb the upstairs’ neighbour, alleging they were bias.
There is no evidence of the landlord addressing this aspect of the complaint despite this being raised on at least two occasions. In her escalation request, the representative also referred to medical evidence that VS had passed to the landlord which in its stage one response, the landlord stated it would consider. There is no evidence of the landlord advising the representative of the outcome of its review of the medical evidence provided.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires the landlord to address all points raised in the complaint therefore its failure to respond to these specific issues is evidence of poor complaint handling.
Further, the landlord initially declined to escalate the complaint to stage two (on 20 May 2021) on the basis that it had fully addressed the complaint in its stage one response of 26 April 2021 and in its complaint responses issued in 2020 considered under our case number 202004145. As aspects of the complaint had not been addressed as per our previous finding, on balance, the landlord’s closure of the complaint was premature in the circumstance.
Whilst it did then provide stage two response after contact from this Service, its initial refusal to escalate the complaint to stage two constitutes evidence of a failure to follow its complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of ASB reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when responding to concerns about the level of support provided.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when responding to reports of damage to the bedroom and kitchen ceilings due to a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the related complaint.

Reasons

Following ongoing ASB reports and because the availability of permanent accommodation was limited, the landlord offered to move the neighbour into temporary accommodation until permanent accommodation could be found. This shows the landlord was willing to take additional steps to resolve the situation. There was a delay by the landlord in arranging temporary accommodation for the upstairs’ neighbour as agreed however its explanation for the delay indicates the cause of this was outside of its control.
The landlord did not demonstrate that it did enough to ensure the resident was being provided with sufficient support whilst it worked on providing a resolution to the situation.
The landlord unreasonably delayed with repairing ceiling(s) at the property damaged due to a previous leak.
The landlord did not address the complaint fully at stage one and unreasonably declined to escalate it to stage two of its complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. pays the resident £500 in total compensation comprising:
  1. £100 for its failure to provide adequate support whilst it worked on resolving the situation.
  2. £200 for its failure to complete repairs to the ceilings within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. £200 for poor complaint handling.
2. confirm to this Service whether or not a repair to the living room ceiling is outstanding.
3. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.