London Borough of Ealing (202119133)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119133

Ealing Council

8 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 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his and a neighbour’s light switches.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a bedsit above another flat, and the landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for him on its system.
The resident and his downstairs neighbour had new bathroom light switches installed by the landlord before June 2019. He reported to it at the time that the new light switch was very noisy, and that he could hear this when his neighbour used their light switch, and vice versa. The resident also reported to the landlord that his neighbour used their light switch throughout the night, which caused him to wake up and disturbed his sleep.
The landlord attended the resident’s property in June 2019 to investigate the resident’s concerns about the noise from his bathroom light switch, and it reported that there were no faults identified with this. It also noted that the light switch was a standard issue switch used across all of its properties, but it nevertheless offered to replace the light switch for him. The resident declined this offer, however, as the replacement light switch reportedly caused the same amount of noise, and the landlord informed him that it would not install a new “silent” light switch, which he had sought from it.
The resident subsequently made a report to the landlord’s safer communities team regarding the noise nuisance that his neighbour’s light switch caused. He also reported that he had difficulties attempting to make a stage one complaint to the landlord about its handling of this issue, but details of this have not been provided to this Service.
The resident then contacted this Service on 18 November 2021, and a stage one complaint to the landlord was raised on his behalf on that date concerning its handling of the noise nuisance. He sought for it to install a new silent bathroom light switch, and to provide his neighbour with a noise nuisance warning.
The resident received no stage one complaint acknowledgement or response from the landlord, which caused him to contact this Service again. We therefore chased it to provide a stage one complaint response to him on 21 December 2021 and 18 January 2022.
The landlord’s subsequent stage one complaint response of 1 February 2022 did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It explained that it had investigated his bathroom light switch when he had first reported the noise issue from this to it in June 2019 and, because there was no fault identified with this, it would not install a new light switch. The landlord confirmed that its safer communities team had received noise nuisance reports from the resident. However, as these reports were considered “low level everyday living noise”, it was unable to investigate them. The landlord signposted the resident to his neighbourhood housing officer for any further concerns that he had about his neighbour.
The resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure on 12 March 2022 because he was dissatisfied that the landlord was not investigating his noise reports. He reiterated that the noise nuisance was disturbing his sleep, and he stated that it had “ignored” a doctor’s letter that he had provided to it about this “last time”. The resident also stated that his neighbour needed to be reminded that they were in breach of their tenancy agreement, and that there was no neighbourhood housing officer, so he was unable to discuss the noise nuisance further with the officer, as suggested by the landlord.
This Service then contacted the landlord at the resident’s request and asked it provide him with a finalstage complaint response on 3 and 23 May and 17 June 2022. Its subsequent final stage complaint response of 24 June 2022 apologised for the delay in providing a response, and this maintained that it did not uphold his complaint.
The landlord also explained that it would not issue the resident’s neighbour with a breach of tenancy warning, as it had informed him that his eight reports to it of noise nuisance that year related to “everyday noise” that was deemed to be “normal”. It additionally repeated that his bathroom light switch was in working order, as this was not unfit for use on the basis of the noise made, but that he had declined its previous offer of a replacement light switch. However, the landlord invited the resident to discuss possibly resolving this issue via mediation with his neighbour, for which it gave him its neighbourhood housing officer’s contact details.
The resident subsequently referred his complaint to this Service because he remained dissatisfied with the noise from the bathroom light switch, and that the landlord had not responded to his concerns over the “ignored” doctor’s letter. He sought for it to install a new silent bathroom light switch in his property, as his neighbour had recently agreed to one, so that they could “both sleep through the night”.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his and a neighbour’s light switches

The landlord’s website states that it is unable to investigate reports about noise caused by poor sound insulation between properties from normal everyday living noises, which it instead suggests should be resolved between neighbours via its mediation service. When there is persistent excessive and unreasonable noise, it states that it will investigate this and take action.
In this case, the noise reported by the resident was found by the landlord to not be persistent, excessive or unreasonable noise that it could investigate in accordance with its website. This was because his reports of noise transference were due to the bathroom light switch, which it considered would come under the category of everyday living noises that its website stated that it could not investigate, and that should instead be resolved between neighbours via its mediation service. This was understandable given that the use of bathroom light switches is an unavoidable everyday occurrence.
As such, the landlord’s approach in not continuing to investigate this as noise nuisance was reasonable in the circumstances. In the year up to its final stage complaint response, the resident raised eight reports of noise nuisance to it, which it addressed by explaining that he had been advised by it on each occasion that it was unable to take action for “everyday living noises”. This was in line with the landlord’s website, and it is reasonable that it explained this to him, so that he could understand why it would not investigate further, as well as that such noise was not a breach of his neighbour’s tenancy but might be resolved via its mediation service, in accordance with its website.
However, the landlord additionally attempted to find a resolution for the resident by inspecting his bathroom light switch after he reported the noise nuisance issue to it in June 2019. This enabled it to discover that there was no fault with the light switch, which it explained to him, and that this was not unfit for use on the basis of the noise made, so that there was no basis for a silent switch as he had requested.
It was also appropriate that the landlord offered the resident a replacement standard bathroom light switch, showing that it attempted to address his concerns about this being faulty. He nevertheless declined this offer because the new light switch reportedly produced the same level of noise as the old one.
However, another solution that could have been explored by the landlord to address the resident’s concerns would have been for it to have investigated the sound insulation between his and his neighbour’s properties. It was not unreasonable that it chose not to investigate this, as it was not obliged to do so and its website stated that it was unable to investigate reports about noise caused by poor sound insulation between properties from normal everyday living noises. Nevertheless, this would have been an alternative way of seeking to reduce the noise, as suggested by this Service’s spotlight report on noise complaints, which the landlord has therefore been recommended to consider below.
It is noted that the resident additionally reportedthat the noise had affected his sleep and thathe had a doctor’s letter about this,as well as that his neighbour had agreed to have a new “silent” bathroom light switch fitted. The replacement of both the resident’s and his neighbour’s light switches to a silent switch would therefore be a reasonable solution to address hisconcerns about the noise in response to any medical evidence provided about this.
While the landlord is not obliged to do this, it could prevent the effect of the noise on resident and further inconvenience to him by assisting him and his neighbour with obtaining silent bathroom light switches, which would resolve his complaint. It has therefore been recommended below to contact him to request details to enable it to consider his request for new silent light switches for him and his neighbour as an adaptation, in light of any medical evidence provided about this. It would additionally assist if the landlord provided them with details of any assistance available to them to help them to replace the light switches themselves, which it has additionally been recommended to do below.
In order to ensure that any future cases of similar noise nuisance issues to the resident’s are handled as helpfully as possible, the landlord has also been recommended below to review its relevant policies, procedures, practices and staff training needs in light of this Service’s spotlight report on noise complaints.

The associated complaint

In line with its corporate complaints policy, a complaint is defined as any expression of dissatisfaction made about the standard of service of the landlord. It is expected to acknowledge stage one complaints within four working days, to respond to both stage one and final stage complaints within 20 working days, and to communicate any extensions to these timescales to the resident with reasons. The policy also states that, if the landlord decides not to accept a complaint, the resident should be told why.
The resident reported to this Service on 18 November 2021 that he had previously had difficulty in raising his stage one complaint with the landlord. There is no evidence, however, of his previous attempts to complain to it.
Although this Service was still able to investigate the resident’s case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of their own and their residents’ actions. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. It is therefore recommended below that the landlord review its record keeping processes for formal complaints, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, with details of specifically when contact was made, what was said, and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.
The landlord firstly failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage one complaint made via this Service on 18 November 2021, it subsequently had to be chased by us for a response on 21 December 2021 and 18 January 2022, and it then only issued its stage one complaint response to him on 1 February 2022.This was a 30-working-day delay in its response after its corporate complaints policy’s 20-working-day stage one complaint response timescale had passed, which was unreasonable.
The landlord should have instead acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint within four working days, and then responded to this within 20 working days, as these were the timeframes defined by its corporate complaints policy. It should have also communicated any delays to him with reasons, as outlined in the policy. This would have prevented the resident from having to contact this Service who, in turn, had to chase the landlord, which caused him further inconvenience.
Following its stage one complaint response, the resident contacted the landlord again on 12 March 2022 to escalate his complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure. Once again, it failed to acknowledge his complaint, which it should have done in accordance best practice. Furthermore, the landlord did not provide a response within 20 working days, as required by its corporate complaints policy, which was a further failing in its complaint handling.
In fact, the landlord instead only provided its final stage complaint response to the resident on 24 June 2022 after three further requests from this Service for it to do so on 3 and 23 May and 17 June 2022. This 49-working-day delay was unacceptable, particularly considering that, in the meantime, it did not provide him with either a final stage complaint acknowledgement, or any communication about this delay with reasons, as also required by its corporate complaints policy.
Moreover, while the landlord’s final stage complaint response to the resident included an apology for the delay, it failed to explain the cause of the delay. It also failed to offer him compensation for his time and trouble for chasing a response for the complaint at both stages of its complaints procedure. This would have been appropriate and in line with the landlord’s guidance on compensation payments, which suggests compensation of up to £150 to recognise a resident’s time and trouble at the second stage of the complaints procedure.
In line with this Service’s complaint handling code, a landlord is expected to address all aspects of a resident’s complaint. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns in his final stage complaint that it had “ignored” the doctor’s letter that he had provided to it “last time”. This was a failing, and it should have addressed these concerns to prevent further distress and inconvenience to him, and to show that it had considered all of the contents of the complaint. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to respond to resident about it “ignoring” the doctor’s letter that he reported that he had previously provided to it.
In light of the failings identified above, the landlord has also been ordered below to pay £150 compensation to the resident. This is in recognition of the length of the delays in him receiving both his stage one and final stage complaint responses from it, the lack of any complaint acknowledgements by it, the absence of any records of his initial complaint, and its failure to address all aspects of his complaint. This is in line with the landlord’s guidance on compensation payments’ recommendation for time and trouble at the second stage of its complaints procedure. This is additionally in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance’s suggestion of compensation from £100 for a failure in service by it which has adversely affected the resident.
The landlord also failed to show that it learnt from the outcome of the resident’s case, which it is expected to do by this Service’s dispute resolution principles, including to prevent its failings from recurring. It has therefore been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its corporate complaints policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code. This is in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent the landlord’s complaint handling failures in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
Moreover, it is noted that the landlord’s corporate complaints policy is not in line with this Service’s complaint handling code, as required by the code. The latter instead outlines that landlords should issue stage one complaint responses within ten working days. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to self-assess its corporate complaints policy and complaint handling against our complaint handling code, and to publish the results, to ensure that the policy and its handling of complaints are in line with the code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from his and a neighbour’s light switches.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay £150 compensation to the resident within four weeks, in recognition of his distress, inconvenience, time and trouble from its poor complaint handling.
2. Complete and publish a self-assessment of its corporate complaints policy and complaint handling against this Service’s complaint handling code at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/.
3. Respond to the resident within four weeks about it “ignoring” the doctor’s letter that he reported that he had previously provided to it.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its corporate complaints policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code, in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling failures in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
2. Contact the resident to request details to enable it to consider his request for new silent light switches for him and his neighbour as an adaptation, in light of any medical evidence provided about this, as well as providing them with details of any assistance available to them to help replace the light switches themselves.
3. Consider investigating the sound insulation between the resident’s and his neighbour’s properties, as suggested by this Service’s spotlight report on noise complaints at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/publications/spotlight-on-reports/spotlight-on-noise-complaints/.
4. Review its relevant policies, procedures, practices and staff training needs in light of this Service’s spotlight report on noise complaints.
5. Review its record keeping processes for formal complaints, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, with details of specifically when contact was made, what was said, and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has followed the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.