Sovereign Network Homes (202117588)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117588

Network Homes Limited

12 May 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 about:
   1. the landlord’s response to reports of noise transference from a neighbouring property.
   2. the landlord’s complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.
   3. an asbestos repair in the communal area.

Jurisdiction

2. 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.
3. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “we may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted the members complaints procedure”.
4. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

c.  an asbestos repair in the communal area.

5. This is because whilst asbestos was addressed in the landlord’s final response letter, it was an issue that was raised ‘after the fact’ and was never part of the original complaint. The issue itself, has therefore not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. The Housing Ombudsman explained this to the resident in a letter dated 12 January 2022 with advice to direct any query about asbestos back to the landlord.

Background

6. The resident lives in a one-bedroom ground floor flat in a converted terraced house. The property was let under an assured tenancy by a registered provider of social housing.
7. The resident reported a lack of sound insulation in 2016. The landlord completed extensive sound insulation costing over £12,000 in July 2017. The resident did not report noise transference again until 2018.
8. In the stage one and stage two complaint responses the landlord responded to noise transference complaints made since 2018 only.
9. This report also considered events that occurred from July 2018 onwards. This is in accordance with paragraph 42c the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman “may not consider complaints which were not bought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.”
10. The resident reported some noise transference incidents as ‘white noise’. This Service understands ‘white noise’ to relate to the use of electric radio equipment that emits a sound designed to shadow general noise.

Policies and procedures

11. The assured tenancy agreement states “the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises including floors and ceilings.”
12. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy 2018 states: 
    1. “[The landlord will] develop an action plan with the complainant, being clear and realistic about potential outcomes and timescales involved.
    2. Assess what physical improvements can help reduce anti-social behaviour.
    3. Non-legal actions we take include:
       1. Warnings
       2. Acceptable Behaviour Agreements
       3. Mediation
    4. [The landlord] promotes tolerance and an understanding that each customer has the right to their own chosen lifestyle, as long as it does not negatively interfere with the lives of others.
    5. Many of the activities that can cause domestic noise are considered to be normal household activities, during the daytime. Domestic noise includes but is not limited to noisy household appliances…television noise…loud music”.
13. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy 2020 states: 
    1. “we may be able to provide advice on how to manage the situation, however we will not investigate the following:
       1. Actions which are as a result of a resident going about their daily activities and everyday use of the property
       2. Noise caused by wooden flooring.
       3. Complaints about noise occurring at different times due to different working patterns”.
14. The landlord’s compensation policy states “before compensation is awarded officers must clearly identify maladministration and evidence the injustice caused to the customer as a direct result of our actions”.
    1. “Maladministration is a failure to do something. Examples include taking too long to do something, not following our own policies, treating someone unfairly.”
    2. “Injustice means there has been an adverse consequence. Examples include being put to avoidable trouble or inconvenience”.

Summary of events

15. On 30 July 2018 the resident contacted the landlord to report “shouting, banging, and loud music playing at all hours” from the property above. The resident approached the neighbour about the noise directly but was advised by the neighbour to contact the landlord.
16. The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 August 2018 setting out an agreed action plan to tackle the noise nuisance. In this the landlord said it would write to the neighbour about the reported noise nuisance and provide diary sheets to the resident to record incidents. The landlord said it would also contact the neighbour about the residents reports of ‘white noise’.
17. The landlord contacted the resident about the noise nuisance on 9 September 2018 because it did not receive any further reports of nuisance from the resident.
18. On 2 October 2018 the resident contacted the landlord and confirmed they could still hear general household noise but there was a ‘vast improvement’. The landlord advised the case would be closed as it had received “no contact since August 2018.”
19. On 12 December 2018 the resident contacted the landlord about an incident of shouting, banging and loud music between 1am and 2.30am that morning.
20. The resident held a conversation with the landlord on 20 March 2019 following their reports that a loud radio was playing in the upstairs property on 19 March 2019. The landlord confirmed the agreed actions it would take in a letter it sent to the resident the same day. The letter included diary sheets and a return envelope. The landlord asked the resident to return the diary sheets in seven days and contact the local authority’s noise team if necessary.
21. The landlord sent a warning letter to the upstairs neighbour on 20 March 2019. The letter referred to three reported incidents of shouting, banging and loud music. The landlord also mentioned a loud radio which was played in the property.
22. On 9 April 2019 the landlord contacted the resident about the diary sheets. The resident said there were no further incidents. The landlord closed the case.
23. The resident reported noise nuisance from squeaky floorboards to the landlord two times in April 2019 and two times in May 2019.
24. The resident provided the landlord with a recording of the noise nuisance on 23 April 2019 and the landlord arranged an office appointment with the neighbour for 30 April 2019.
25. The resident returned diary sheets and provided the landlord with an audio file of the noise nuisance on 24 May 2019
26. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 July 2019 to advise no noise nuisance came from the resident’s property following a counter-allegation from the neighbour.  The landlord stated it would arrange to repair faulty floorboards in the upstairs property.
27. On 21 February 2020 the resident stated they wished to “escalate their concerns” about banging pipes, squeaky floorboards and a perception of their reports being ignored and discrimination. The landlord replied on 10 March 2020 stating it recognised the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s services. The landlord said the resident should make a formal complaint if further incidents happen. The landlord also said reports of squeaky floorboards had not been passed to the repairs team.
28. The resident reported banging pipes to the landlord on 17 April 2020 and the landlord contacted the upstairs neighbour to advise that contractors would repair the faulty pipes.
29. The resident used a diary sheet to record incidents that occurred in 2020. The residents’ records show:
    1. three incidents of ‘white noise’ in April 2020
    2. one incident of ‘white noise’ and one incident of creaking floorboards in May 2020
    3. three incidents of’ white noise’ in June 2020
    4. Two incidents of creaking floorboards and banging pipes in July 2020
    5. one incident of ‘white noise’ and two incidents of creaking floorboards in September 2020
    6. one incident of ‘white noise’ in October 2020
30. On 28 September 2020 the resident reported creaking floorboards which affected their sleep. The resident reported two further incidents in October 2020 and an incident of ‘white noise’ in November 2020.
31. On 9 December 2020 a councillor emailed the landlord to say that noise transference was affecting the resident. The landlord replied and advised it was investigating the matter and asked the neighbour to lower the volume of the ‘white noise’.
32. The landlord inspected the neighbour’s property on 4 June 2021, some 26 months following the first report of noise transference from the floorboards. The surveyor recommended the floorboards were screwed down and a graphite substance laid between cracks.
33. On 17 June 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about noise problems and defects to the flat since 2016. The landlord replied to the email on 24 June 2021 stating, “we are unable to raise a complaint for an issue which did not occur in the last year”.
34. The landlord accepted a stage one complaint from the councillor on 30 June 2021. The landlord responded with a detailed summary of the antisocial behaviour case on 7 July 2021.  The landlord offered compensation of £200 because it “should have dealt with the creaking floorboards sooner”.
35. The resident escalated the complaint to stage two on 2 August 2021 as they disagreed with the reason the landlord provided for closing the antisocial behaviour case. The resident also stated the defective floorboard repair complaint was not responded to and audio files of noise transference they provided were not reviewed.
36. The landlord issued a stage two response on 25 August 2021. The landlord provided a timeline of all activity related to the complaint and referenced the assessments provided in the stage one complaint response provided. The stage two response suggested “the lengthy gaps between reports, indicated the matter had not been a constant problem”. The landlord stated it was unable to identify what action it took with the audio files provided. The landlord apologised for its failure to complete a floorboard repair and increased the offer of compensation to £400 because “concerns about the floorboards were raised sooner than suggested in the stage one complaint response”.
37. This service accepted the complaint for investigation on 1 November 2021.

Assessment and findings

38. In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s response to reports of noise transference from a neighbouring property.

39. The resident reported noise nuisance from the upstairs neighbour in July 2018. The landlord agreed an action plan with the resident and wrote to both parties. The landlord monitored and closed the case in October 2018 due to no further reports and because the resident stated there was a ‘vast improvement’.  The resident reported a further incident two months later, and the landlord agreed a new action plan and wrote to both parties again. The landlord closed the case in April 2019 because no further reports were received. The landlord gave the resident diary sheets to record incidents and was expected to return these to the landlord.
40. The landlord took a victim-centred approach to the reports of noise nuisance related to banging, shouting and loud music by agreeing action plans with the resident. This aligns with its antisocial behaviour policy. Sending warning letters to the upstairs neighbour about the reports of noise nuisance was a reasonable way for the landlord to tackle the type of antisocial behaviour reported at this stage. By writing to the neighbour, the landlord reminded them of their tenancy responsibilities and enabled them to change their behaviour. The landlord assessed the reports of noise nuisance as antisocial behaviour and handled them effectively during this period.
41. The resident reported further noise transference from creaky floorboards and a radio during April 2019. The landlord set up an office appointment with the upstairs neighbour on 30 April 2019 to discuss this which was an appropriate response. However, there are no records of the meeting, and no evidence that the landlord provided any advice to the resident following the meeting. The landlord was expected to rearrange the meeting if it was cancelled and/or keep a file note which outlined the outcome of the meeting and provide an update to the resident afterwards. This was a service failure.
42. The resident said they provided the landlord with completed diary sheets and audio recordings during April and May 2019. The landlord stated in its stage two response that it was “unable to determine what action it took with the audio file”. The landlord was expected to assess and retain all evidence it received. This Service requested further information from the landlord about the receipt and assessment of diary sheets and the audio files but has not been provided with any advice about the use or retention of the items. This represents a record keeping failure.
43. It is not clear if the landlord reopened the antisocial behaviour case when the new incidents were reported in April and May 2019, or if it considered the noise transference as low-level general living noise outside of its antisocial behaviour policy. In any event, this Service has seen no evidence that a new action plan was agreed with the resident, or alternative advice was provided to the resident to manage their expectations, and this was expected. This was a service failure.
44. The landlord wrote to the resident in July 2019 to advise it found no evidence of nuisance coming from their property and would close what appeared to be a counter-claim antisocial behaviour case. The landlord also said it would repair the upstairs floorboards which was a solution focussed approach to take. There were no other letters or records of conversations about noise transference at this time. The landlord’s formal contact and written notification of case closure was good practise.
45. The resident “escalated their concerns” in a letter addressed to the landlord in February 2020 about defective floorboards, banging pipes, previous reports being ignored and a perception of discrimination. In a written response dated 10 March 2020, the landlord recognised the residents dissatisfaction, provided an update about the outstanding floorboard repair, and apologised for the delay. It also advised the resident to make a formal complaint if they experienced further incidents of discrimination. The landlord did not recognise the residents letter as a formal stage one complaint, nor investigate, or agree to investigate the residents reports of discrimination and this was expected. This was a service failure.
46. The resident reported further noise transference from white noise, banging pipes and creaking floorboards between April and October 2020. This was detailed on the residents diary sheet, but it is not clear when this was provided to the landlord. It is reasonable to consider the resident provided the diary sheet to the landlord after the last entry dated 20 October 2022. This service has seen no evidence that the landlord received any other nuisance reports or took any action to address noise transference during this time. The landlord was not expected to respond if it did not receive the diary sheet or any other report from the resident. There was no service failure during this time.
47. It is evident that general noise transference, exacerbated by the opposing waking hours of the neighbouring households, affected the resident intermittently over a three-year period. The landlord took steps to tackle noise related to banging and shouting, which it assessed as antisocial behaviour with some success. However, it did not manage the expectations of the resident with reference to the general noise transference caused by differing lifestyles by being “clear and realistic about potential outcomes and timescales involved”. This was a service failure.
48. The resident expressed a view that the landlord did not respond to their reports adequately and this could have been addressed by providing more regular contact about the landlord’s interpretation and handling of the reports it received.  The landlord could have been more proactive in addressing the low-level noise transference using non-legal remedies such as by reoffering mediation or using acceptable behaviour agreements to control noise transference from white noise, in line with the antisocial behaviour policy. This was a service failure.
49. The antisocial behaviour policy stated the landlord would not investigate ‘complaints about noise occurring at different times due to different working patterns’. The use of ‘white noise’ during the daytime hours would fall under this category, but the landlord did not explain this explicitly to the resident. The landlord also failed to provide advice that promoted ‘tolerance and an understanding that each customer has the right to their own chosen lifestyle’. If it had, the resident may have reconsidered how they could accommodate this type of noise transference themself.
50. The landlord identified a floorboard repair as ‘a physical improvement to reduce anti-social behaviour’ in line with its policy. The landlord accepted the floorboards upstairs were faulty and that it had a responsibility to carry out repairs. The repair would have made a significant difference to the impact of noise transference on the resident. However, the landlord did not progress the repair when it was identified, and it was delayed further by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord did not complete the floorboard repair until three and a half years after the resident first reported it. This was over a year after the landlord’s final complaint response was issued. This timescale is unacceptable, notwithstanding any delays due to the pandemic, and prolonged the impact of noise to the resident. This was a service failure.
51. The landlord responded to the earlier neighbour noise nuisance allegations using its antisocial behaviour policy effectively. The severity of the ongoing noise transference from floorboards and white noise was relatively low, and it is recognised the landlord was limited in the direct action it could take, but it was the landlord’s responsibility to explain this. The Housing Ombudsman spotlight report on noise complaints states “although a lack of statutory noise levels does limit landlords’ options, particularly tenancy enforcement action, it does not absolve them of the requirement to explore other suitable resolution”. The resident experienced a cumulative impact of noise transference, in sporadic periods, day and night over a three-year and a half year period and this would have affected their quiet enjoyment of their home and led to distress and inconvenience.  Further, the time and trouble taken by the resident to make reports, complaints and submit diary sheets and audio files to the landlord was significant.
52. By failing to repair the floorboard when it was identified and manage the residents expectations, through effective communication and record keeping – despite the practical limitations of managing low level household noise transference and the impact of the pandemic – this service finds maladministration in the landlords handling of noise transference.

The landlord’s complaint handling and level of compensation offered.

53. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out clear principles for handling formal complaints. The complaint policy and procedure reflect the principles of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
54. The landlord’s complaint responses align with the complaint policy and principles of the complaint handling code in the following ways:
    1. The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident in advance of writing the response.
    2. The landlord produced detailed complaint responses and provided clear information about the evidence it used when replying.
    3. The letters advised how to escalate the complaint and signposted this Service.
    4. The landlord offered financial redress in recognition of the impact the service failure had on the resident.
55. The landlord did not uphold its complaint policy in the following ways.
    1. The landlord did not identify and register the resident’s letter dated 21 February 2020 in which they “escalate their concerns” as a stage one complaint.
    2. The landlord misinterpreted a complaint made on 17 June 2021. The landlord stated the complaint was about property defects and rejected the complaint stating, “the property was built over 12 years ago”. The resident subsequently discussed the complaint with a local councillor who successfully raised the complaint on their behalf. This increased time and trouble to the resident.
    3. The landlord did not issue any complaint acknowledgements, so the resident did not know when to expect a response.
    4. The complaint responses did not state if the complaint was upheld, partially upheld, or not upheld.
    5. The landlord did not share any learning it had taken from the complaint.
56. When looking at compensation as a remedy for dissatisfaction, this service first looks at the landlords own assessment of its service failure and the redress due. We then look at the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance (published on our website) to assess if the award is reasonable.
57. The landlord awarded £200 compensation for floorboard repair delays. This was increased to £400 because the floorboards were reported earlier than stated.  It is not clear how the landlord calculated its’ compensation award, but by offering compensation the landlord has “identified maladministration and evidence of injustice caused to the customer as a direct result of [the landlords] actions”.
58. The length of time it took the landlord to complete repairs to the floorboards was not acceptable and warrants financial compensation for the distress and inconvenience it caused.  This Service therefore must decide whether the compensation the landlord offered is sufficient redress for the damage caused.
59. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in effect at the time suggests awards of between £250-£700 where there has been a degree of maladministration without a permanent impact on the resident and where the landlord failed to act in accordance with policy over a considerable period of time. This service considers that noise transference coming from the property above caused distress and inconvenience to the resident since they reported the matters in 2018. This would have been greatly reduced if the floorboards were repaired when the fault was first reported. Considering the time it took for the landlord to progress the repair the redress offered is low and an increased level of compensation is due in view of this.
60. This Service recognises the landlord issued very comprehensive complaint responses that analysed and presented information from different evidence sources clearly. It recognised its failings and tried to put right what had gone wrong by offering financial redress. However, the level of redress was low, and the landlord did not always meet the principles of the Housing Ombudsman scheme and complaint handling code as referenced in paragraph 52, points a – e. These failings would have had a significant impact on the resident, in terms of time and trouble and distress and inconvenience over a significantly long period of time. This represents maladministration.

Events since the complaint was duly made.

61. The landlord had not completed the floorboard repair when the complaint was accepted for investigation and so it is not possible to fully assess the extent of the impact it had on the resident. It is likely that noise transference from the faulty floorboards continued and so the landlord should consider an award of additional compensation for distress and inconvenience experienced until the repair was completed.
62. This Service is aware that the landlord completed the floorboard repair in December 2022.

Determination (decision)

63. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to:

a. Reports of noise transference from a neighbouring property.

64. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to:

      b. Complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.

65. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

                 c.  an asbestos repair in the communal area.

Reasons

66. The landlord did not manage the residents expectations during the noise nuisance investigation. The landlord did not repair floorboards within a reasonable time, and this cannot but have had a negative impact on the quality of life of the resident.
67. The landlord’s administration of its complaint procedure was not in line with the complaint handling code. Specifically, it did not issue acknowledgment letters, determine the complaint, such as advising if the complaint was upheld, nor share learning from the complaint. The award of compensation was not suitable redress for the inconvenience the handling of the noise transference had on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

68. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by neighbour noise nuisance and delays in repairing floorboards in the neighbouring property between July 2018 when the resident reported the matter and August 2021 when the landlord’s final complaint response was issued.
    2. £300 compensation for the time and trouble caused by the landlords handling of the reports of noise transference from the neighbouring property between July 2018 and August 2021.
    3. £200 for time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    4. The total compensation award is £800. This award replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £400.
    5. If the landlord has already paid the resident, this should be deducted from the amount ordered and therefore £400 should be directly to the resident within 28 days of receipt of this report.
    6. The landlord is ordered to consider and provide additional reasonable compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by further delays in repairing the floorboards between August 2021 and December 2022.
69. The landlord is ordered to:

a)     review the factors surfaced in this case and the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise nuisance and incorporate relevant recommendations, such as the development of a good neighbourhood management policy into the provision of its housing services.

b)     provide antisocial behaviour policy refresher training for housing and tenancy management staff with particular attention on noise transference, record keeping, managing resident expectations, timeliness, and communications.

c)     review repair handling processes so that noise limiting repairs are prioritised and completed within reasonable timescales.

d)     provide complaint handling code refresher training for all relevant staff.

70. The Landlord must advise this service of its intentions in respect of the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence on its full compliance on all orders within three months of the date of this report.
71. Recommendations

a)     The landlord is recommended to consider reviewing and updating any existing void standard to ensure that carpets are not routinely removed, but hard flooring is, when there have been historic reports of noise transference.