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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202123152)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123152

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 March 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

  1. The complaint is the landlord’s handling of:
  1. The resident’s reports of noise nuisance within the property.
  2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident, who is a shared ownership leaseholder, lives in an apartment. The building itself is maintained and serviced by a management agent.
  2. The resident advised that he had been experiencing noise and vibrations from pipes within the building since he had moved into the property in 2007. He advised that the pipes were boxed in, and the issues stopped. However, following the installation of new pipes several years previously, the issued has reoccurred. He raised the issue with the managing agent of the building. In response to this, the managing agent sent multiple contractors to the property in order to asses and identify the source of the noise. The pipes, pumps and lifts were inspected but no sounds were heard, and no faults were found. Additionally, the managing agent placed contractors on standby for three consecutive days, but during this time, the sounds were not present.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the managing agent on 30 March 2020 regarding the issues he had faced. The managing agent’s final response on 23 April 2020 concluded that it had done everything it could in order to try to identify the source of the noise. It also advised that it had asked the landlord to find out if other residents had heard the noise, as well asking if the resident of the flat above had made alterations to his home (which the resident considered may be the cause of the issue). The managing agent also noted that it had asked the resident to record a diary sheet outlining the dates and times that the noise occurred, as well as videoing/recording the sound. The resident did not provide this information and therefore the investigation stopped.
  4. The resident approached this Service, and on 27 September 2021, this Service referred the resident’s complaint to the landlord. The landlord liaised with the managing agent to determine what had been done in order to satisfy the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s final response on 26 April 2022, found that the managing agent had done all that it could regarding its attempts to discover the source of the noise and vibrations. Additionally, it determined that from the evidence provided, the resident had not engaged with the managing agent in a way that would assist in finding a solution. As well as this, the landlord confirmed that the resident had not filled out diary sheets, or provided recordings as requested by the managing agent. It advised that it was important for the resident to do this if a solution were to be found.
  5. Whilst the landlord said it was confident that it could do no more to discover the source of the noise, it did acknowledge that its complaint handling was not to the required standard as its complaint responses were late. In recognition of this, it awarded the resident £50 compensation. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the noise and vibration issue and advised this Service that he wanted the landlord to make the necessary repairs to stop the noise.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage one complaints are to be resolved within 10 working-days and stage two complaints are to be resolved within 20 working-days. It also states that “if [the landlord is] unable to resolve [the resident’s] complaint within this time, [it will]: aim to keep [the resident] informed, explain the reasons for why [the landlord is] unable to resolve [the resident’s] complaint, and provide a timescale of what’s involved to resolve [the resident’s] complaint and approximately how long [the] complaint will take”.
  2. Section 4.21 of the landlord’s compensation policy states that awards of £50 to £250 are appropriate for cases in which there was service failure that resulted in “some impact on [the resident]”. For example, “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses”.

Scope of Investigation

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance within the property

  1. Following the resident’s complaint, it was the landlord’s duty to investigate the managing agent’s response to the issue, determine whether it was appropriate, and to pursue further action should it be deemed necessary.
  2. Once notified of the resident’s complaint on 27 September 2021, the landlord approached the managing agent to determine whether it had any communication from the resident regarding the issue. It also asked the managing agent if it was a recent issue or a historic issue. This was appropriate as the landlord needed to determine how long the resident had been experiencing the problems. This would help the landlord to understand the context of the issues, and what had been discussed between the managing agent and the resident.
  3. The managing agent provided the landlord with a detailed summary of events which explained the efforts it had undertaken in attempting to resolve the issue. The agent’s summary demonstrated a thorough investigation into the matter, and showed extensive input from contractors, engineers, and the building’s staff. It was made clear that contractors had attended the building several times, and investigated all service areas that could have potentially been the source of the noise. The water pumps and pipes were inspected, as well as the lifts in the building. All contractor visits determined that either no noise could be heard when they visited, or that there were no faults with the systems that had been inspected.
  4. The managing agent also provided correspondence and contractor reports which demonstrated the efforts undertaken by the contractors and building staff, which confirmed that these systems had been investigated, and that no faults had been found. As well as visits, contractors were put on standby due to the intermittent nature of the noise. In one instance, contractors were on standby for three days, yet the noise did not occur during this period.
  5. Having been presented with the contractor reports and correspondence, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on this evidence. The landlord is expected to make decisions based on the available evidence gathered from suitably qualified professionals within the field. Therefore, even though the resident advised that he wanted pipes to be boxed in (this had fixed a similar issue in 2007), without evidence of the noise and proof of a legitimate fault within the building, the landlord would not be expected to request work such as this to be carried out. Although the landlord is expected to maintain the structure of the building, it is not required to make improvements aside from changes required by legislation such as the removal of cladding for fire safety. Boxing in pipes would be seen as an improvement, which the landlord is not required to agree to.
  6. It should also be noted, that during the managing agent’s investigation into the matter, it had requested information from the landlord regarding the property above, as the resident was concerned that alterations to the apartment above may have been the source of the issue once it was concluded that there were no other faults. The landlord responded accordingly and contacted the resident of the property above, and confirmed that there were no alterations to that property.
  7. It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to provide diary sheets and recordings documenting the noise. This evidence would assist the landlord in investigating the noise as it would show the nature and volume of the noise as when it was occurring. It was also appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to attend visits so its contractors and management agent could investigate the noise. The evidence provided by the management agent, as well as emails from contractors, outlined several occasions in which operatives were unable to gain access to the property on pre agreed upon times and dates for visits. The available evidence suggests that the resident did not provide diary sheets or recordings detailing the noise.
  8. As the landlord had made reasonable efforts to investigate the noise, it was unable to take its investigation further without the noise recordings and diary entries from the resident. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should review its position if the resident provides diary entries and/or noise recordings. If the resident is unable to create diary entries or noise recordings, he can let the landlord know and the landlord should then consider whether other methods may be appropriate to gather evidence of the noise, such as the use of specialised noise recording equipment.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out clear guidelines regarding timeframes for complaint responses. Additionally, these timeframes are also set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord acknowledged in its stage one response that it had exceeded its 10 working-day timeframe of providing a response. Although it only exceeded the timeframe by one day (the complaint was on 27 September 2021 and the response was on 12 October 2021), it apologised and offered £25 in compensation. Whilst it was only a short delay, it was positive for the landlord to recognise it and offer compensation. This demonstrated an awareness of its own shortcoming, and a willingness to offer a remedy regardless of how slight the service failure may have been.
  2. However, following this, the landlord’s final response was significantly delayed. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had requested escalation of his complaint on 10 November 2021. The landlord then required prompting from this Service before providing its final response on 26 April 2022. When excluding the 20 working-day timeframe allowed for a final response, this was a delay of just over four months.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage two complaints are to be resolved within 20 working-days. It also states that “if [the landlord is] unable to resolve [the resident’s] complaint within this time, [it will]: aim to keep [the resident] informed, explain the reasons for why [the landlord is] unable to resolve [the resident’s] complaint, and provide a timescale of what’s involved to resolve [the resident’s] complaint and approximately how long [the] complaint will take”. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord provided any updates for the resident. This was a failure to manage the resident’s expectations regarding when a complaint response would be issued which may have caused frustration and worry to the resident.
  4. The landlord explained in its final response that the resident’s escalation request had been filed under the wrong process, and therefore, this administration error led to his escalation request being missed. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its internal processes to minimise the likelihood of this happening again.
  5. In its final response, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £50. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to increase the offer, it is the opinion of this Service that the total amount of compensation should be greater. This is due to the extent of the delay in issuing the final response. This Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) set out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests that for instances in which there was service failure that may not have permanently impacted the resident, an offer of £100 would be appropriate. This amount takes into account inconvenience to the resident caused by the delay in the landlord’s final response and the lack of updates provided during this time.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance within the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £100 compensation. This includes the £50 already offered to the resident. This is to be paid within four weeks of the date of this investigation.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to once again request a diary sheet and recordings from the resident. Should these be provided, the landlord should ensure it takes appropriate steps to pursue a resolution.
  2. The landlord is recommended to carry out an internal review of its complaint handling processes to minimise the likelihood of complaint escalation requests being misfiled as happened in this case.