Brighton Housing Trust (202211942)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211942

Brighton Housing Trust

26 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 handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from the property above.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident, who is an assured tenant, informed the landlord on 17 March 2022, that he had concerns about his upstairs neighbour potentially installing wooden flooring. He believed that his neighbour was not allowed to install such flooring and wanted the landlord to undertake a building check once it was installed. The landlord advised the resident that flooring was usually a tenant responsibility, but that the neighbour would likely need to get permission for such an installation.
3. Once the neighbour installed the new floor on 13 April 2022, the resident advised that he could hear everything from the neighbour’s apartment above. This included conversations, footsteps, and the sound of the neighbour’s television. The landlord asked the neighbour for access to inspect the new flooring, and to determine whether it was in line with the required standards. The neighbour agreed to this.
4. Following this, on 29 April 2022, the resident submitted a formal complaint about the installation of the laminate flooring. He advised that his preferred outcome was for the flooring to be removed, or for his ceiling to be soundproofed at the cost of either the landlord or the neighbour.
5. The landlord’s stage one response (11 May 2022) explained that it had inspected the laminate flooring as well as attending the resident’s property to listen for noise disturbance. It confirmed that the laminate flooring was adequate and that the underlay had been fitted to a satisfactory standard. It also confirmed that during the inspection, one surveyor stayed with the resident and listened for the other surveyor upstairs who walked heavily, had a conversation with the neighbour, and turned the television on. Neither the surveyor downstairs or the resident heard any noise or gave any indication that sound was transferring in the resident’s property.
6. In mid-May, the resident advised that he wanted to escalate his complaint as he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response, and he felt that he had not been supported by the landlord. The landlord suggested that the resident contact the environmental health service as they could provide recording equipment.
7. The landlord failed to provide a final complaint response, and as such, the resident contacted this Service on 5 September 2022. This Service wrote to the landlord and directed it to provide a final response by 22 September 2022. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 16 September 2022.
8. The landlord in its complaint response apologised for the delay in response. It explained that this was due to staff absence. However, it maintained that the flooring had been laid in a correct and professional manner, and the landlord felt confident that it was not contributing to any noise disturbance that the resident was experiencing. Although, the landlord did confirm that it would take on board the resident’s suggestion and would review its policy of allowing such flooring in first floor flats and above.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

9. Section 2.2 of the landlord’s ASB procedure states that complaints not investigated as part of the ASB procedure include those that amount to “day to day household noise.”
10. The landlord’s complaints procedure advises that should the published timescales for responding to complaints be unachievable “a revised timetable will be agreed. Circumstances, such as the absence of key personnel on annual leave or sickness, may result in the timescale having to be revised.”

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from the property above.

11. Following the resident’s complaint about the noise from the property above, it was appropriate for the landlord to survey the property to determine whether the neighbour’s new flooring was installed to an adequate level, and also to investigate whether there was excessive noise in the resident’s property.
12. The landlord’s maintenance operative assessed the implementation of the flooring and determined that it had been installed in a professional manner, and that the underlay beneath the laminate was adequate. It also advised that there was no evidence to suggest that the new flooring would have caused additional and excessive noise in the resident’s property. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the advice of a professional in order to grant permission to the neighbour to keep the flooring.
13. Additionally, it is clear that the landlord made reasonable efforts to test how the noise travelled through the floor/ceiling. As the resident had advised that he could hear footsteps, discussions, and the television clearly, it was appropriate for the surveyors to demonstrate the noise levels by recreating such actions.
14. It was not disputed that during the inspection, neither the surveyor or the resident heard the “heavy” footsteps of the surveyor above. Neither was there any indication that the television was heard, nor any conversations. With this in mind, it is the opinion of this Service that the landlord addressed the issues that had been raised by the resident. Furthermore, given the findings of no excessive noise, it was appropriate for the landlord to determine that there was no issue with the new laminate flooring.
15. The landlord also advised the resident to contact the environmental health service should the resident continue to be disturbed by the noise. The environmental health service would have been able to provide noise recording equipment and conduct further investigation should the resident feel it necessary. This was sound advice from the landlord. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident followed the landlord’s advice and contacted the environmental health service.
16. It is worth noting that whilst the resident hadn’t contacted the environmental health service, this option remains open. Should the resident choose to do this, it would be appropriate for the landlord to assess any findings that may be made and ultimately act appropriately.
17. In the final response, the landlord advised that it would take the resident’s suggestions on board and agreed to review its policies regarding the allowance of laminate/wooden flooring in first floor properties and above. This was a reasonable response to the concerns that had been raised. It demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to learn and improve following complaints. This is an important part of this Service’s dispute resolution principles.
18. Should the landlord make any changes to its policies, it would be appropriate to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Noise (October 2022) when implementing any changes.
19. Given the evidence provided, it is the opinion of this Service that there was no maladministration by the landlord in regard to its handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from the property above, and his concerns that the neighbour has laminate flooring. It conducted a reasonable investigation into the noise and the flooring itself and offered appropriate advice for the resident to take the investigation further.

Complaint Handling

20. Following a formal complaint from the resident, it is the landlord’s duty to ensure responses are given within the published timeframes. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that stage two (final) responses are to be provided within 20 working days from the point of escalation. Additionally, the landlord’s complaints procedure advises that should the published timescales for responding to complaints be unachievable “a revised timetable will be agreed. Circumstances, such as the absence of key personnel on annual leave or sickness, may result in the timescale having to be revised.”
21. The final response in this case was roughly four months late. The landlord advised that this was due to the fact that the resident’s housing officer had been on extended sick leave. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord notified the resident of this, nor is there evidence to suggest that the landlord offered new timeframes for which the resident could expect a response. This was not only a failure in following its own policies and procedures, but a failure to manage the resident’s expectations.
22. Managing expectations is an integral part of the landlord’s service delivery. Failure to manage expectations can cause unnecessary involvement for the resident, and also a potential sense of uncertainty regarding the outcome of the complaint and whether it was being investigated as it should have. This can lead to a detrimental effect on the resident’s trust of the landlord and therefore a negative effect on the landlord/tenant relationship.
23. This Service recognises that there can be unforeseen circumstances that may lead to a delay in response, such as the housing officer’s extended sick leave in this case. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that the investigation was picked up by another operative within a reasonable time. This would have allowed the landlord the opportunity to update the resident regarding the progress of the complaint, and to demonstrate that it was striving to find a resolution for the resident.
24. The landlord’s delay in response, and failure to keep the resident updated amounts to service failure in regard to its complaint handling. As such, it is the opinion of this Service that the landlord pays compensation in recognition of this. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances in which there was service failure that resulted in “delays in getting matters resolved” but where it did not “significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident”, a payment of £50 would be appropriate.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in regard to its handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from the property above, and his concerns that the neighbour has laminate flooring.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in regard to its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

27. The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failure outlined in the determination.
28. The landlord to pay the resident £50 for its complaint handling service failure.
29. The landlord to confirm compliance with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

30. It is recommended that the landlord considers this Service’s Spotlight Report on Noise (October 2022) when considering any changes that may be made to its policies going forward.