Camden Council (202127652)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127652

Camden Council

18 September 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of reports of noise from the resident.
   2. Response to the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is the leaseholder of a flat in an apartment block. The landlord is the freeholder of the apartment block.
3. The resident has told us they have a number of medical conditions, including anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
4. According to the resident, they began reporting issues with noise from a neighbouring family in early 2021. The earliest evidence we have from the landlord shows that a report was made in December 2021. The landlord also said that a concern was raised by the resident’s local councillor around this time. The resident contacted this service on 17 March 2022. They said they raised a complaint with the landlord but had not yet received a response.
5. The resident complained that a family in the flat above them was making significant amounts of noise. The resident stated that noise regularly started at 5:30am and was caused by children screaming and banging doors. The resident said this significantly affected her quality of life.
6. The landlord contacted the resident on 1 April 2022 to confirm it was investigating the complaint. It wrote its stage 1 response to the resident on 13 April 2022. It said that the family were moved to the block in September 2020. The landlord was aware the children had complex behavioural issues and there were significant support services in place for the family. The landlord also said it had fitted additional carpets, rugs, door stops, and window restrictors to reduce the noise. The move to the property was temporary and the council were trying to source suitable alternative accommodation.
7. The resident made 5 further reports of noise between April 2022 and August 2022. On 28 May 2022, the resident asked to escalate their complaint with the landlord. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this request at the time. The resident then contacted this service in July 2022. On 12 September 2022, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to send its final response to the resident.
8. On 29 September 2022, the landlord wrote its final response to the resident. It said:
   1. It was still trying to move the family above.
   2. It acknowledged the situation was not in anyone’s best interest, including neighbours.
   3. Significant support services were in place for the family.
   4. It had taken all possible measures in the neighbour’s flat to reduce noise.
   5. It could not take any measures in the resident’s flat, as they are a leaseholder.
   6. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £100 compensation.
9. The resident escalated the complaint to this service and remains unhappy that the family have not been moved to different accommodation. The resident wants additional compensation for the distress and anxiety the circumstances have caused.

Assessment and findings

Noise

10. The landlord in this case is a local authority. It’s response to the complaint explains that the family were housed under its homelessness duty, rather than a landlord duty. The allocation of social housing for a local authority is not considered within this Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. We are only able to consider how the landlord responded in line with duties it had to the resident as a landlord.
11. The landlord has internal guidance on how it investigates noise complaints. This highlights that the causes of noise are not always clear and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Ombudsman published a Spotlight report in 2022, providing guidance to landlords on how they should respond to reports of noise. That highlights the need for landlords to consider whether housing a family in a flat above ground floor is appropriate. As the family were housed under a homelessness duty, we do not think it is appropriate to consider this aspect of the guidance. The Spotlight report also provides guidance on what landlords can do to assist with noise transference in apartment buildings.
12. The landlord has not provided any evidence of noise reports raised by the resident. However, based on internal emails we have seen and the resident’s testimony, we think it is likely they were reporting noise for some time before the complaint. We would generally expect landlords to maintain adequate noise diaries to assist with decision making as well as complaint handling.
13. The landlord has explained to the resident, in some detail, the circumstances in which the family above find themselves. It is clear that the landlord is providing significant support for the family. We cannot comment on the families medical or support needs. This aspect is wholly within the expertise of the local authority. Generally, we would expect landlords to consider noise a separate issue to antisocial behaviour. Where noise is caused by children or vulnerable people, a landlord needs to be compassionate and considerate to all involved.
14. The landlord has led discussions with the family to see what further support it can put in place to limit noise. It has asked relevant social workers and support professionals to discuss the matter with the resident. These were positive steps that the landlord was taking, although we understand that they were not successful.
15. The landlord has sought to reduce noise transference where possible through adaptations to the property. It installed carpets, underlay, rugs, door stops, and window restrictors to limit the amount of noise which could be created or transferred. We think this was good practice. The resident is a leaseholder of their flat, as opposed to a tenant. This means that the landlord has no duty to make adaptations to their flat to also reduce noise. The landlord could make adaptations to the space between floors. However, this could potentially be time consuming, and the flats may not be habitable during the work making it impractical. So, we think that their final response is appropriate in this regard.
16. The landlord has considered the current situation untenable and is making efforts to move the family to a more suitable property. We understand that it is struggling to find suitable locations within the borough. The landlord, on the advice of support services, has determined it would be best for the family to remain within the borough. A lack of available housing is limiting the landlord’s options. It is for the landlord, as part of its local authority duty, to consider where the most appropriate placement would be. It is therefore not appropriate for us to comment on this decision. However, we do think it has sufficiently explored the options it has available.
17. The resident has described distressing circumstances caused by the noise. The landlord says it sympathises with the situation but feels it cannot do anything more. The resident thinks that the landlord should do more to move the family. Having considered the evidence, and the options available to the landlord, we would not expect it to do anything more. As such we have found no maladministration in its handling of the noise reports.

Complaint handling

18. The landlord’s complaint policy follows a 2-stage process.
    1. Stage 1:
       1. Handled by relevant department or manager.
       2. Resolved within 10 workings days.
    2. Stage 2:
       3. Dealt with by specialist complaints team.
       4. Central oversight.
       5. Resolved within 25 working days.
19. It is unclear how the complaint was first received by the landlord, however, it does not appear that it was sent to the correct team. We say this because later internal emails from the temporary accommodation team indicate that they do not deal with complaints. This is somewhat at odds with the policy laid out. The internal emails suggest that complaints are not dealt with initially by the relevant department meaning there is a disparity between written policy and practice. For the resident this caused a delay at stage 1 of the complaint process which was unreasonable.
20. When the stage 1 complaint was resolved, the resident attempted to escalate the complaint as they felt the matter had not been resolved. It is not clear why this escalation was not picked up by the landlord. The resident subsequently waited 4 months for a response to their complaint which was unacceptable. The landlord’s complaint policy is also not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which says that stage 2 complaints should be resolved within 20 working days.
21. The landlord did recognise the delay in its final response and apologised. It also offered £100 in recognition of the distress, time, and trouble. Although we recognise the distress in respect of the noise was greater for the resident, we have only considered the distress caused by the poor complaint handling. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. As such we have found that the landlord offered reasonable redress to resolve the complaint.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of noise. This is because there are no further steps we would reasonably expect the landlord to take in the circumstances.
23. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of the complaint handling.

Recommendations

24. The landlord should review its complaints process and consider the following aspects:
    1. Whether there should be a formal process for handing off complaints to the appropriate team.
    2. Whether record keeping is accurate and in line the Ombudsman’s recent Spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
    3. Whether it can justify the deviation from the Complaint Handling Code in respect of timescales for resolving complaints.