Sanctuary Housing Association (202010886)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010886

Sanctuary Housing Association

29 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

The landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of a leak at the property.
2. The resident’s reports of window disrepair.
3. The resident’s report of issues with her electric heaters.
4. The resident’s report of noise transfer.
5. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a 2 bed house and has an assured tenancy which began on 14 February 2011.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a ‘front line response’ within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a second response within 20 working days which it refers to as the ‘investigation’ stage. This would be the landlord’s final response to the complaint. The complaints policy also describes the circumstances where the landlord will not consider a complaint. This includes issues that occurred more than 6 months prior to the complaint being raised.
It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy has since been updated to be in line with the Housing Ombudman’s complaint handling code.
The landlord’s procedure says about its front line resolution stage that it requires its staff to undertake a more formal and innovative approach where staff ‘go the extra mile’ to resolve a complaint. There is no requirement to write to residents at this stage although they may request this.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may consider offering a complainant financial redress when it has failed to meet the level of service set out in its published standards. The landlord’s recommended payment guide categorises its payment tariffs as: up to £50, £51-£150 and £151 to £400. Redress considered at the £51 to £150 level is defined as “High Effort/Low Impact or Low Effort/High Impact”. The policy recommends offering compensation for delays in providing a complaint response at this level.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be made safe within 24 hours and appointed repairs will be completed within 28 days.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will pay compensation if repairs are not completed within its published timescales, due to the landlord’s failure in its actions or inaction.

Scope of investigation

In raising her complaint, the resident referred to several items of disrepair that had occurred throughout the duration of her tenancy. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues when they occur or soon after. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, this assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in 2020 and, specifically, on the formal complaint made by the resident in January 2021 and how the landlord handled this.

The resident’s reports of a leak at the property.

On 26 November 2020 the resident called the landlord to report a leak from the immersion tank at the property.
On 27 November 2020 the landlord called 7 different contractors to try and find availability for an emergency appointment to attend the immersion tank leak.
On 30 November 2020 the landlord’s contactor advised that it had attended and tightened a loose valve on the immersion tank which might need replacing. The landlord requested that this took place urgently.
On 7 December 2020 the resident called the landlord to chase attendance for the leak as no full repair had been made following the temporary repair. The resident said that the leak had reoccurred during the weekend.
On 5 January 2021 the resident made her complaint to the landlord via this Service. The resident reported issues with:
1. The property gutter and roof. The resident was concerned there was a leak as there was damage on 2 bedrooms ceilings.
2. The immersion tank, which the resident said she believed had been leaking since 2012.
3. The resident was concerned about damage to a ceiling which had a large stain / water mark on it from a leak.
On 14 January 2021 the landlord inspected the property:
1. The surveyor decided to request that the loft insultation was removed and relayed following the water tank leaks.
2. Although no damp was observed the landlord had been unable to fully inspect the roof so therefore an inspection was requested to be completed by a roofing contractor.
On 27 January 2021 the landlord emailed the resident an update which can be considered to be its ‘front line complaint response’ following the inspection on 14 January 2021. It said:
1. There was no evidence of a leak from the tank or the roof area.
2. That a recent inspection found that the ‘roof was not sound and causing leaks internally’ however no areas of damp were detected.
3. Staining on the ceiling where the original leak occurred was thought to be a ‘material issue.’
4. Loft insulation would be checked.
5. Damp around the ceiling edges was explained as a ‘trick of the light’ caused by cutting in of the ceiling paint with a brush with thicker paint. A torch had been used to demonstrate this by shining the light over the edge to make the shadow disappear.
Later on, the same day, the resident replied with an email expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions so far. She said:
1. The surveyor who attended on 14 January 2021 had not gone into the loft for safety reasons, so the resident was unsure how he was able to decide that there was no leak from the roof or water tank. She explained that in the absence of the landlord going into the loft she had gone into the loft herself and now attached a picture of water damage around the tank in the loft.
2. The resident explained that the landlord itself had said the roof was not sound and asked what it would do about this.
3. In regard to the landlord’s comments about the staining on the roof being a trick of the light, the resident repeated that the landlord had not gone into the loft and therefore could not say there was no leak and also could not say there was no damp or mould caused by water ingress.
4. It was the resident’s view that the tank was leaking and although slight, this was causing eventual water marks on the ceiling below.
A roofing contractor attended the property on 4 February 2021 and recommended the following work:
1. Stripping off tiles, felt and battens.
2. Renewing felt with a breathable membrane.
3. Replacing battens.
4. Renewing broken tiles.
5. Replacing guttering.
On 18 February 2021 due to the existing loft insulation being saturated by a water leak and also not being the recommended thickness, new insulation was laid.
On 11 April 2021, the resident reported a leak from the loft. The landlord’s contractor attended on 12 April 2021. They found a leak on the immersion tank and a works order was raised for a new tank to be supplied and fitted. This was completed on 20 May 2021.
Between April and July 2021, the landlord halted its repairs and complaints process due to notification of pre-action protocol initiated by the resident in relation to a disrepair claim.
On 21 July 2021 following notification of the discontinuation of the disrepair claim, the landlord sent an investigation stage response to the resident. About leaks at the property, it said its contractor had recommended work to the roof on 4 February 2021 and this work would now be progressed.
On an unspecified date after this response, the resident replied to the landlord seeking a further update expressing confusion over what had caused the water staining and whether this was related to the immersion tank leak or any water ingress from the roof repair.
On 30 September 2021, the landlord sent an updated investigation stage response. About the roof leak, the landlord said:
1. On 5 January 2021, the resident had reported loose tiles overhanging the gutter resulting in rainwater missing the gutter and cascading down the wall.
2. Prior to this report there had been no reports of this nature.
3. A roof inspection was carried out by a contractor who then completed the repair.
4. The landlord’s surveyors had been unable to identify roof repairs during their inspections which was why a specialist roofing contractor attended.
5. £100 was offered for delays in progressing the roof repair.
About the stain on the ceiling, the landlord said:
1. Its contractor had repaired the ceiling on 9 September 2012 and as far as it was concerned this had resolved the stain.
2. It apologised a ceiling wash down was not carried out on 18 February 2021 when new insultation was laid and advised a works order would be raised to paint over the stained area.
At the time of this investigation in September 2023, the resident has advised the roof repair has been attempted but despite visits from contractors remains unresolved.

Residents reports of window disrepair.

On 5 January 2021 the resident made her complaint to the landlord via this Service. The resident reported that the windows at the property were in poor condition with all the seals gone. The draft was reported to be ‘horrendous. The seals were gone all around them and on a windy day the curtains blew back and forth.’
On 14 January 2021 the landlord’s surveyor attended the property and recommended that the windows were checked and adjusted.
On 27 January 2021 the landlord sent a front line response to the resident in which it confirmed that it had repaired the windows. The resident responded on the same day asking for an escalation to the landlord’s second complaint stage because she wanted the landlord to respond to her complaint about the window seals being gone and the windows letting in drafts.
A further inspection on 26 March 2021 found that adjusting and resealing around the windows would not solve the issues with the draughts due to warping of the window openers. The windows were recommended to be replaced and an order was raised for this on 12 April 2021.
Between April and July 2021, the landlord halted its repairs and complaints process due to notification of pre-action protocol initiated by the resident in relation to a disrepair claim.
On 21 July 2021 following notification of the discontinuation of the disrepair claim, the landlord sent an investigation stage response to the resident. In this response the landlord advised that the windows had been ordered and would be replaced.
The resident responded to the investigation stage response on an unspecified day. She added comments about the windows for the landlord to respond:
1. The landlord had attempted repairs between 2011 and 2014 that did not resolve the issues, but these issues were still present.
2. Operatives that came to view the window had told the landlord that there were issues with the windows with the last visit being to measure the windows up for replacement.
In its further investigation stage complaint response dated 30 September 2021 the landlord explained that the resident had not contacted the landlord since 2014 about this issue and the landlord had now acted on the reports, she had made within her complaint. The landlord had raised an order for renewal which it anticipated to be completed within the next 30 days. £100 was offered for the delays in the progression of the window repairs.
The windows were replaced on or before 31 October 2021.

The residents reported issues with her electric heaters.

Following reports of burning smells and inoperative heaters from the resident in 2019 the landlord completed work to renew the heaters.
On 29 January 2020 during a visit to the property to inspect the heaters the landlord found no issues. In response to the resident’s concern about the cost of their operation, it was found that the resident ‘constantly’ had the boost function turned on the heater which was likely why bills were high. The resident was advised that as there were no issues the heater would not be changed.
On 12 August 2020 the resident reported being unhappy with the heating in the property bedrooms which were supplied by 2kw panel heaters which had been installed to replace the storage heaters. The landlord inspected the property and with agreement of the resident decided to replace the panel heaters with new night storage heaters which were supplied and fitted on 23 September 2020.
On 30 September 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that the night storage heaters that had been installed were not working at all. The resident said that she though this might be due to the wiring in the property. The landlord was informed that the resident’s daughter had a poor immune system and would be vulnerable to having no heating.
Following inspection on 16 October 2020, on 12 November 2020 the landlord completed a full factory reset on the heaters.
On 13 November 2020 the resident called to report issues with 3 of the heaters which she said worked intermittently and were also making her pay more bills than usual. When they were not charged overnight, some of the heaters only showed 2 bars on their settings panel. The landlord decided to ask for an independent assessment of the heaters.
On 27 November 2020 the landlord provided the resident with a temporary heater whilst full repair of the storage heaters was organised.
On 5 January 2021, the resident raised her complaint with the landlord in which she said the property storage heaters had never worked properly and the 1 in her daughter’s bedroom had ‘never worked’.
On 14 January 2021, the landlord inspected the property. After the inspection a works order was raised for the renewal of 2 combined storage heaters.
On 27 January 2021, the landlord sent what can be considered as its front line resolution response. It said that whilst it had tried to repair the storage heater in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom its recent inspection had found that it still did not work and that it therefore ‘should be replaced’.
On 27 January 2021 the resident requested an escalation to investigation stage because:
1. The landlord had only addressed the heater in her daughter’s bedroom and not the other rooms.
2. The resident was concerned about the excessive cost of running the heaters which were not holding their preset programmes.
3. She was concerned that electrical circuits were overloaded.
An electrical installation report dated 19 March 2021 was carried out at the landlord’s request. This report commented that the installations were in a satisfactory condition, however it recommended that new circuits were installed to the storage heaters. This was because at the time of the inspection the existing heaters and the sockets were on the same circuit as the sockets and ‘could cause overload problems in the future’.
On 13 July 2021 the landlord raised an order for the following heating replacements:
1. Master bedroom Dimplex.
2. Second bedroom Dimplex.
3. Hallway Dimples.
4. Lounge Dimplex.
5. Wiring to new heaters.
Between April and July 2021, the landlord halted its repairs and complaints process due to notification of pre-action protocol initiated by the resident in relation to a disrepair claim.
On 21 July 2021 following notification of the discontinuation of the disrepair claim, the landlord sent an investigation stage response to the resident. It explained that it had sought to resolve the issues with the heaters initially through completing manufacturer’s reset and then replacing faulty heaters. It confirmed that it had agreed to replace 4 heaters and to provide new wiring.
On 29 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say:
1. New heaters had been fitted but had not been given their own new circuit.
2. The contractor had initially only fitted 4 heaters but had now fitted 5.
3. 1 of the new heaters fitted had not worked and the contractor had to attend to complete a repair. The resident was concerned this was to do with heaters being added to existing circuits rather than receiving their own wiring.
On 30 September 2021 the landlord provided a further investigation stage response to the resident’s complaint. About heating and electrics, the landlord said:
1. During an electrical inspection carried out on 16 March 2021, a separate circuit for the heaters had been recommended but as the test found the existing circuits operation satisfactory this had not taken place.
2. Whilst the resident had reported further issues with the heaters the landlord’s view was that the decorative covers placed over the heaters and the settings being adjusted by the resident had caused those issues.
3. To summarise, the landlord said it noted the resident’s belief the circuit was overloaded but that its contractor’s report did not support this.
4. The complaint was partially upheld due to the length of time it had taken to complete the work.
5. £100 was offered for delays in installing the new heaters and £400 was offered for intermittent loss of heating.

Soundproofing

The resident first raised an issue with noise transfer from the neighbour’s property with the landlord on 8 November 2017. During her call she stressed that the neighbour was not being deliberately noisy but that the sound from their lifestyle, as a family with a baby, was coming into her home. The resident said she was unsure what to do but the sound was making her ill due to migraines.
Actions and reports occurred through 2018 to 2019 as the landlord investigated the resident’s reports. On 9 April 2019 the landlord’s surveyor suggested an acoustic surveyor inspect the property as the floor joists were connected to each other and therefore were transmitting sounds. The resident chased this on 15 May 2019 and no further response was received. As these events occurred more than 18 months prior to the complaint being brought, they are outside of the scope of this investigation.
When the resident brought this concern back to the landlord via a complaint made via this Service on 5 January 2021 in which she said that she had suffered many years previously due to ‘neighbours from hell’ and that a surveyor had been out and ‘stated the property should be soundproofed’. She gave an example that light switches could be heard being turned on and off from next door. The resident explained the landlord had been due to organise a sound engineer, but this had not happened.
On 27 January 2021 the resident responded to the landlord’s front line complaint response sent on the same day which covered the disrepair issues discussed above but had not mentioned sound proofing, an issue that had been raised in the resident’s original complaint email dated 5 January 2021. The resident now added that she suffered daily migraines which affected her physical and mental health due to lack of sleep and that the landlord had said a sound engineer would inspect the property, but she had received no further update. This was considered to be the resident’s request for this aspect of her complaint to be reviewed at stage 2.
On 21 April 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident that a soundproofing request had been sent to its assets team for consideration. The case file that the landlord referred to from 2018 concluded that soundproofing works could not be carried out. However, it renewed the offer ‘explore the possibility’ of approaching a contractor to inspect the property.
Between April and July 2021, the landlord halted its repairs and complaints process due to notification of pre-action protocol initiated by the resident in relation to a disrepair claim.
On 21 July 2021 following notification of the discontinuation of the disrepair claim, the landlord sent an investigation stage response to the resident. About soundproofing the landlord said that:
1. An inspection had taken place during the pre-action protocol which this investigation has not had sight of. This inspection recommended sound insultation for the living room and second bedroom to be installed on the walls and plastered over, in addition a contractor was required to investigate the loft for areas of insufficient sound proofing.
2. The ASB team had checked but would be unable to resolve any ASB with the neighbour as they were not residents of the landlord.
The resident responded to the investigation stage response with further points that she wished to make although the date of this reply is unclear the resident had contacted the landlord on 22 July 2021 to say the reply would be provided in a ‘couple of weeks’ due to ill health:
1. She provided a doctor’s letter about treatment for severe migraines.
2. Explained you could hear talking, yawning, snoring and noise from the neighbours.
3. She believed the noise was travelling through ceilings and walls and that every room in the house was affected.
4. She did not see how it was possible to suggest remedial works without an inspection from an acoustic sound engineer.
5. She explained that her home had been unliveable as she was unable to sleep in the bedroom and that compensation should be paid due to the loss of facilities in accordance with her rent.
6. In addition, she explained that a payment should be made due to effects on her health, which had also resulted in her losing her job.
On 30 September 2021 the landlord sent its updated investigation stage response. About soundproofing, the landlord said:
1. In 2018 after reports of excessive noise from the neighbour, it had suggested arrangements would be made for an acoustic engineer to assess the noise transfer however it admitted that this did not take place.
2. The landlord noted the resident made no further contact with it after 2018 and therefore it had found it reasonable to assume the resident was no longer experiencing issues.
3. It had made an offer to undertake soundproofing work as outlined previously and noted that the resident did not believe this would work.
4. The landlord said that it would organise an inspection from an acoustic engineer to consider the problem.
On 29 September 2021 the resident informed the landlord that she had been ‘sleeping on the sofa for years’ due to noise from the neighbour and asked the landlord if it had an update on soundproofing.
After the final response letter and at the time of this investigation in September 2023, the resident has advised this Service that there had been no further update from the landlord regarding this matter.

Complaint handling

Following contact with this Service on 5 January 2021, the landlord undertook actions as part of its front-line resolution complaint phase before raising a complaint on 31 January 2021 after the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the front-line resolution response that was undertaken.
On 21 April 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2. It explained that it would aim to respond within 20 working days. It also explained that it was currently experiencing challenges in delivering its service due to Covid-19 and it might take longer to complete the required investigation.
On 23 April 2021 the landlord was notified of a disrepair claim by a solicitor representing the resident.
On 18 May 2021 the resident explained she was taking disrepair action to ensure the landlord fulfilled its repair obligations in her home. She explained she still felt the landlord should investigate its failings and consider its procedures and policies.
On 19 May 2021 the landlord sent an investigation stage reply to the resident in which it merged 2 separate complaint threads to provide 1 response as all items were due to disrepair at the property. An email also sent on this date explained the complaint would remain open and a further response would occur pending the outcome of the disrepair claim.
On 23 June 2021 following the landlord being notified the resident was no longer pursuing the disrepair claim, the landlord continued its complaints process.
On 21 July 2021 the landlord provided its investigation stage response to the resident’s complaints. It explained that following notification that the resident no longer instructed a solicitor regarding a disrepair claim, the complaints process would continue. In consideration of all of the items of complaint the landlord offered the resident compensation of:
1. Time, trouble, and inconvenience of £400.
2. Handling of the stage 1 complaint of £150.
The complaint response did provide the resident with opportunity to bring this matter to the Ombudsman. Throughout September 2021 the landlord and the resident remained in touch as the resident provided the landlord with more information regarding the complaint and asked it further questions. The landlord kept the resident updated about its intentions to investigate further and send a further complaint response.
On 30 September 2021 the landlord provided its further investigation stage response. The landlord apologised for its delayed response. It repeated that it could only investigate issues and concerns that had occurred in the 6 months period prior to the complaint being logged.
About the resident’s request for compensation the landlord signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman’s website for the resident to consider remedies used in case studies. The landlord then went on to set out the compensation offer it would make of £1300 for issues experienced by the resident as set out above and broken down in full below.
1. Time, trouble, and inconvenience £400.
2. Delays in window replacement £100.
3. Delays in replacing heaters £100.
4. Complaint handling including stage one and length of time complaint had been open £200.
5. Delays in roof repairs £100.
6. Intermittent loss of heating £400.
7. Complaint handling including stage 1 and length of time complaint had been open £100.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. put things right, and.
3. learn from outcomes.

The residents report of a leak at the property.

Following this Service’s contact with the landlord which passed on the resident’s concerns about the condition of the roof, the landlord arranged an inspection of the property and a surveyor visited within 3 days as it was reasonable to do so. This surveyor attempted a roof inspection and when he was unable to complete this fully, a specialist contactor was instructed and who attended and completed identified work by 4 February 2021 as was appropriate.
When notified of a leak in the immersion tank at the property on 26 November 2020, 7 contractors were contacted about the leak before the landlord identified one that could attend. Resulting in a contractor attending and completing a temporary repair on 30 November 2020, 4 days late and 3 days later than the 24 hour response time set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
In relation to the leak from the immersion tank there were failings by the landlord which have been identified as:
1. Delay in completing a full repair to the immersion tank in a timely way and in accordance with its repairs policy.
2. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not send an appropriate operative to inspect the immersion tank which resulted in the resident accessing the loft to demonstrate there was dampness and placing herself at risk of injury.
In the landlord’s complaint handling the landlord offered £100 for the delays experienced in completing the roof repair work. The landlord’s final response did not discuss the resident’s experiences in identifying the leak’s source and in not recognising that due to its failing to appropriately inspect the loft, the resident had herself had to access the loft to view the water tank. £100 was therefore not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to her reports of a leak at the property. Therefore, there was service failure by the landlord to comprehensively investigate and diagnose the resident’s reports of a leak before creating a suitable action plan to resolve them.

Residents reports of window disrepair.

When notified that the resident was experiencing issues with her windows the landlord acted promptly to inspect them within 4 days of receiving the report on 14 January 2021, as was appropriate.
The resident reported to the landlord on 27 January 2021, that any repair work would not be sufficient to rectify the issues, however it was appropriate for the landlord to reply on its technical staff and attempt repairs. A further inspection on 26 March 2021 agreed with the resident that the repair would not be successful and as such the landlord agreed to renew the windows as was appropriate to do so.
The windows were renewed by November 2021. There were delays in progressing the window renewal in full due to the landlord’s decision to put work on hold work due to the pre–action protocol following notification of the resident’s disrepair claim. This resulted in it being 5 months until the repair was completed. This delay was inappropriate as the pre–action protocol notice should not have prevented works taking place, this is handled in detail later in this report.
The landlord did recognise that there had been delays in completing the full repair and to put things right it offered £100 in the landlord’s further investigation stage response on 30 September 2021. Using the landlord’s complaints policy which defines a payment of £100 for issues that have been high effort / low impact. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance places payments of up to £100 as suitable for minor service failings of a short duration. In this case the delay was 8 months which was a protracted period for the resident to wait for the repair. £100 is therefore not a proportionate amount of redress and as a result, this investigation finds maladministration in how the landlord handled the reports of window disrepair.

Issues with electric heaters.

The resident first raised issues with her heating during 2020, during both the first and second Covid-19 lockdowns. Despite these circumstances, the landlord did progress the replacement of the 3 heaters within the property as was reasonable for it to do so.
On 30 September 2020 when the resident raised issues with the heaters again, along with her concern that the property wiring might be at fault, the landlord decided that an independent assessment would be needed. However, there is no evidence that this was progressed at this point as agreed and this was unreasonable.
The landlord took no further action until contact with this Service on 11 January 2021, when the resident raised her concern about the heating again. A subsequent inspection agreed that installing 2 new heaters would resolve the issue. The landlord is able to rely on the expertise of its operatives when making decisions abouts its fixtures and it is reasonable for the landlord to have concluded these new heaters would resolve the resident’s concern.
A later electrical inspection, carried out by an independent contractor on 19 March 2023 concluded that the wiring in the property was satisfactory. The report did recommend that wiring was changed for the heaters to be on their own circuit. The landlord decided that it did not need to act on this recommendation as the circuits themselves were satisfactory. It is not for this Service to comment on the suitability or otherwise of the wiring in the property, nor is this Service qualified to do so. However, the landlord’s later actions to replace potentially faulty heaters did resolve the heating matter without the need for additional wiring.
Following these inspections, a total of 5 new heaters were ordered for the property, which were installed during September and November 2021. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether these were 5 replacement heaters for heaters that had already been replaced following works orders raised in January 2021.However, the resident has commented at the beginning of this investigation that the landlord resolved the heating matter satisfactorily.
Through its complaints process and in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles the landlord offered reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolved the complaint. This is because:
1. The landlord recognised periods the resident had gone without heating and where its responses had been slow.
2. The landlord put things right and offered a total of £500 compensation broken down into £100 for delayed appointments and £400 for the loss of heating for the resident. The compensation offered is in line with both the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which details payments of over £400 where considerable failings have been found but no permanent impact found.
3. The landlord also renewed the storage heaters throughout the property, in accordance with both the resident’s wishes and its contractor’s recommendations.

The resident’s reports of noise transfer.

Part E of the Building Regulations came into force in the UK in 2003. It prescribes acoustic insulation levels for new and converted residential buildings and sets decibel levels (dBA) for airborne and impact noise. These standards do not apply to any home built, or converted, before 2003 and there is case law that landlords are under no obligation to soundproof homes to a standard above the one that was in force at the time of its construction. Therefore, the landlord is not responsible for soundproofing the property above the standards applicable at the time of its building.
However, as per the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise landlords are encouraged to adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to an ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good relationships between neighbours and how it may handle reports of noise transfer.
Following the renewed report from the resident, which stated she experienced ‘neighbours from hell’, the landlord did not act to speak directly with her to triage the details of the report by assessing the noise levels, types, and frequency so that it could agree a plan of action about the types of noise that she was experiencing. The landlord did not give the resident full advice on how to evidence the noise being received nor advice and signposting on the best approach to discussing the issues in partnership with her neighbour, through mediation or further investigations into the types of sound causing the issue. It is noted that the resident’s neighbour was a private rented tenant, however the landlord still had the responsibility to support its resident in this process and it did not do this.
Whilst originally investigated in 2017 and 2018 noise transfer from the neighbouring property was brought back to the attention of the landlord in January 2021 as part of the resident’s complaint. The landlord reviewed its historic records and identified that the agreed approach of an acoustic engineer to inspect the resident’s reports of noise transfer issues did not take place and offered to progress this inspection. Whilst this service has not seen any contemporaneous evidence of an inspection taking place, it is clear that the landlord sought to progress 1 as in its first investigation stage response dated 21 July 2021, the landlord made an offer to the resident for it to provide sound insultation on the walls of the living room and upstairs bedroom and to complete a further inspection of the loft to identify sources of sound transfer. As there is no legal obligation for the landlord to soundproof the property, this is a reasonable offer for it to make.
However, the resident’s view that the remedial work offered would not be sufficient and had not come via an acoustic engineer’s recommendation is a fair position for her to take. The landlord had offered this course of action which would provide the resident and it with a clear course of action, and it was reasonable for the resident to expect this course of action to be followed. The offer of an acoustic engineer was then repeated in the 30 September 2021 updated investigation response letter. To date this service understands such an inspection has not taken place. This is a failing for the landlord to progress or provide an update on its offer and to work with the resident in seeking a solution to this reported problem.
In conclusion, the landlord did not engage with the resident appropriately following her report of noise from the neighbouring property which she says had a substantial impact on her by causing migraines and poor sleep. It has failed to triage the resident’s January 2021 complaint by exploring all available options, such as noise monitoring assessments and mediation. There is no obligation for the landlord to soundproof the property and the landlord made a reasonable offer to complete some remedial works, however this offer was not comprehensive or made using recommendations from the offered acoustic survey for which the landlord repeatedly failed to keep to its commitments to conduct. Therefore, this service finds maladministration for which an appropriate order will be made below.

Associated Complaint

When first received, the landlord handled the complaint using its front-line resolution complaint stage. Whilst the landlord acted within its policy it should be noted the landlord’s use of a ‘front-line resolution’ complaint stage, during which there is no expectation for a formal formally written response, is not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and has resulted in a complaint handling failure by the landlord. The code says that landlords must confirm in writing to the resident at the completion of stage one in clear, plain language.
1. the complaint stages.
2. the decision on the complaint.
3. the reasons for any decisions made.
4. the details of any remedy offered to put things right.
5. details of any outstanding actions.
6. details of how to escalate the matter to stage two if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
There was an inappropriate delay between the complaint being raised to the second stage on 27 January 2021 and the resident receiving an acknowledgement 67 working days later on 21 April 2021 which is a failing by the landlord to adhere to the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code which says complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days. When the landlord did acknowledge the complaint, it appropriately explained that it would aim to respond within 20 working days. It also reasonably explained that it was currently challenged to deliver its service due to Covid-19.
When the resident instructed a solicitor to contact the landlord in relation to possible disrepair legal proceedings the landlord’s handling of this resulted in a further failing. When a landlord receives correspondence initiating the disrepair protocol, it is important that it does not disengage from either the complaints process or the repair issue itself. Commencing the protocol does not constitute legal proceedings. As the pre-action protocol for housing disrepair cases specifically says that one of the options for alternative dispute resolution is a landlord’s complaints procedure, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to allow the resident to access this. In this case, the landlord halted its complaint and repair processes pending the outcome of discussion between legal representatives, despite there being no issuing of formal Court proceedings. This further delayed the resident receiving necessary repair works and prolonged the complaints process unnecessarily to a total of more than 5 months between 27 January 2021 and July 2021.
The landlord did recognise the delay in a complaint response and offered the resident £100 for these delays in its complaint handling. A further £400 was offered for the time and trouble for the resident across all items of the complaint. In the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, amounts between £100 and £600 are considered to be appropriate where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration with no long term impact on the resident, where the landlord has acknowledged the failing and attempted to put things right. This compensation offered was therefore proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident and the landlord has made an offer of redress that satisfactory resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure with how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of window disrepair.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation its handling of the resident’s report of issues with her electric heaters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration with how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of noise transfer.
In accordance with section 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to inspect the roof and water tank adequately and promptly to then provide sufficient reassurance or action that the leak was diagnosed and remedied. This resulted in the resident entering the loft herself to gather information for the landlord.
The landlord acted to inspect the windows on receipt of the resident’s complaint. Once they were identified as being beyond repair it appropriately began its process to have the windows renewed however this process was unreasonably delayed by the landlord’s pre court protocol resulting in an 8 month wait for the window repair to be fully completed.
The landlord undertook several visits to the property to diagnose the resident’s heating issue. It provided new heaters where it felt appropriate. There were delays in the heaters all being renewed as agreed resulting in intermittent heating outages for the resident. The landlord recognised this and offered a proportionate level of financial redress.
Whilst there is not a specific requirement on the landlord to complete soundproofing works it had agreed with the resident to undertake an assessment. This is something that it agreed before and during the complaints process which it did not progress. Neither did the landlord discuss the resident’s new noise reports from January 2021 and take an empathetic approach to consider what actions it could take to support her in the circumstances.
The landlord’s complaints process is not compliant with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The landlord also inappropriately halted its complaints process due to pre-action protocol actions which prolonged the resident’s experience waiting for a formal complaint response. However, the landlord’s total redress payment amounts to reasonable redress on this matter.

Orders

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of receipt of this order and in addition to the £1300 already offered through its complaints process, the landlord pays the resident additional:
1. £100 for its communication and delays in diagnosing the source of the leak.
2. £150 for delays in progressing the window repair.
3. £400 for its handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour.
It is ordered that the landlord reviews any outstanding roof repair issues and provides the resident with an update with 4 weeks of receipt of this order.
It is ordered that the landlord contacts the resident and considers with her its next actions in regard to her complaint about noise and in particular, progresses its offer to have an acoustics survey completed at the property within 4 weeks of receipt of this order.
It is ordered that the landlord self-assesses its noise handling procedures using the Ombudsman’s spotlight on noise report which is available on our website. This should be completed by 30 November 2023.
It is ordered that the landlord reviews its pre-action protocol processes and ensures staff are adequately trained to ensure that the possibility of legal action does not slow down or stop its residents access to its complaints process or necessary repairs / services. An update on the landlord’s intentions should be sent to the Ombudsman by 31 October 2023.