Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202202688)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202688

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

13 December 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s request for a door replacement.
2. The resident’s reports of noise transference and soundproofing issues.
This report has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a first floor, 2-bedroom property in a converted semi-detached house that is owned and managed by the landlord. The property was let under an assured tenancy agreement in 1997.
The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident.
This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that occurred after its final stage 2 complaint response and is therefore beyond the scope of this investigation. It is, however, relevant for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs it is noted.

Relevant policies and procedures

The assured tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the inside walls, doors, door frames and fireplaces of the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy says routine repairs are normally completed within 28 calendar days and by appointment. The policy says that door replacements are not routine and are normally completed in an agreed work programme. These will be carried out under a separate programme as annual planned works or major repairs.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy says it is committed to tackling the causes of ASB and prevent incidents of ASB from arising and escalating. It also says it will use its professional judgement as to whether reports of ASB can be realistically investigated and resolved and that it will undertake action that is reasonable and proportionate.
The landlord’s website says if an incident is classed as ASB, it can be reported, and it will respond within 5 working days. The website also says that if the problem is ongoing it requires evidence which can be obtained by using a diary sheet or a noise app.
The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a written response to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says in some circumstances it is appropriate to offer compensation to recognise any detriment or damage caused to an individual. The policy says that when it determines that a customer is due compensation, it will firstly apologise and then be fair, consistent, and proportionate with its approach for any inconvenience caused. The policy says that it will provide an apology and payments of up to £150 for poor complaint handling, depending on the severity of the failure.
The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the code) says under paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16, that landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage 1 and 2 in clear plain language:
1. The complaint stage.
2. The decision of the complaint.
3. The reasons for any decisions made.
4. Details of how to escalate the matter if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 21 May 2018 to report that his neighbour came home in the early hours of the morning and proceeded to blast his music for at least 2-3 hrs.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 7 August 2018 to thank it for issuing an ASB order to his neighbour. The resident asked the landlord to close the ASB case because noise was no longer a problem and the issues had been resolved.
The resident called the landlord on 3 August 2021 to say that the fireplace which had been decommissioned 20 years previously was letting in noise from the neighbouring property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 August 2021 to request a visit from a surveyor to discuss the renewal of the front door because it needed updating to reduce energy consumption and to increase security.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 August 2021 to report a lot of noise which was coming from the fireplace area. The resident said that he had noticed that there was a board covering the gap where the fire had previously existed which hadn’t been plastered over. The resident said that the noise had echoed into his home as if he was sitting downstairs with his neighbour and that this had been causing him immense stress.
The landlord contacted the resident on 29 September 2021 in response to a request he had made for a call back the same day. The landlord called to say it would follow up on his issues with the front door.
The landlord contacted the resident on 5 October 2021 to advise him that it would chase up a response to get repairs orders raised following an inspection that had been completed at the property. It is not clear to this Service which repairs the landlord was referring to following its property inspection.
The landlord sent an internal email on 8 October 2021 which said that the front door renewal was the responsibility of its planned works team, who had declined to renew the door, despite renewing all others in the area. The landlord said that its contractor had inspected the door and said it was technically functional, but was letting out a lot of heat, which was proving difficult for the resident. In addition, there was no handle on the outside of the door, meaning it needed to be slammed shut. The landlord asked for either a door renewal, or another means of rectifying this matter.
The landlord called the resident on 8 October 2021 to advise him that a repair order had been raised for the fireplace and that it was awaiting an update on the communal door repair from the planning team.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 December 2021 to chase the fireplace repair appointment. The landlord advised the resident that the repair would take place 2 days later. The landlord subsequently completed repairs to the fireplace in the property on 9 December 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 January 2022 to speak to the local housing manager (LHM) about the front door of the property. The resident said that the door was old, out of date, unsafe, not secure, had no handle, and that this resulted in him having to use the letterbox to shut the door. The landlord emailed the planning department later the same day asking it to email the resident with the renewal date for the front door because it was in poor condition. The landlord emailed the resident the same day to say that it would arrange for an inspector to look at the front door if the renewal was not due within the approaching year.
The landlord’s planning team sent an email to the resident on 15 February 2022 that said his front door would be renewed during 2025-26.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord via its website on 20 February 2022. The resident reported issues with the front door which he said was a health and safety concern and noise which he said was a major problem within the property. The resident said that the noise problems had started 6 years ago and that the previous tenants had been elderly. He also said that after much research he thought that the property had not been converted properly to flats.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 February 2022 to ask him to provide more details about his concerns about the front door and soundproofing.
The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 27 February 2022. The resident said:
1. He had raised an issue with the door along with other issues in the latter part of 2021, but the door repair had not been progressed. He had re-raised the door issue several times in January 2022 and had been asked to make a complaint.
2. In between raising the complaint, he had received an email from the planned works and repairs department on the 15th February 2021 that said that the front door renewal would take place in 2025-26.
3. He had been told that all doors have a shelf life of 30 years but that he had lived in the property for over 25 years and the door had already been there when he had moved in.
4. The current door was dated, and it did not have any grab handles, nor was it up to the current standards as it lacked safety locking features and a solid draft excluder.
5. Draft excluders had been installed 5 years previously which were redundant and no longer served their purpose and gaps around the door were visible when it was closed.
6. Both he and his neighbour were extremely frustrated with noise. His neighbour lived a standard life, but the noise had been “haemorrhaging” into the resident’s living space.
7. The noise was as bad in the day as it was during the evenings, and he was able to hear his neighbour having conversations on his phone like he was sitting in the same room.
8. He had knocked on his neighbour’s door on many occasions because his voice seemed elevated when in fact that wasn’t the case.
9. He could not use the living room because it was above the neighbour’s living room and that it wasn’t fair that he could not live how he chose to without interrupting the resident’s peace and vice versa.
10. He had tried everything to reduce noise and had laid double thick underlay.
11. He had raised complaints in the past and mediation had been completed but the issue was unresolved and was unavoidable.
12. He had consulted with a construction company who had said that sound boards would be the best solution as the property wasn’t a full and complete conversion.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 3 March 2022. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience that had been caused and said:
1. It had received the complaint on 27 February 2022 which was about the replacement of the front door and noise nuisance from a neighbour.
2. It could not see that any repairs about the resident’s issues with the front door had been raised within the previous 6 months.
3. It could not see any records that the resident’s noise complaint had been raised for the LHM to address.
4. It could not investigate a complaint where no service failure had occurred.
5. It could not uphold the complaint as it could not detect any service failure in relation to the concerns that had been raised within the preceding 6 months.
6. The resident could report repairs via an email address, or phone number which it provided.
7. It had asked the LHM to contact the resident about his noise complaint by the end of the week commencing 7 March 2022.
8. The landlord did not provide advice about how to escalate the matter to stage 2 of the complaint procedure.
The landlord sent an internal email on 3 March 2022 that asked the LHM to contact the resident about his noise complaint. The email said that it had previously asked the resident to raise a door repair through the correct channels.
The landlord sent an internal email on 3 March 2022 that said:
1. The resident was of the view that his neighbour was not being unreasonable or creating ASB.
2. The landlord’s stock in the area consisted of a lot of poorly converted properties and the resident was complaining about the property and had identified some possible resolutions.
3. The matter was not something the LHM could manage and to ask her to do so would unfairly raise the resident’s expectations and put the LHM in a position she could not resolve.
4. The solution was with the planned repairs team.
5. It was aware that the landlord had explored sound insulation in similar properties before, but that it was decided not to progress this for some reason.
The landlord sent an internal email on 4 March 2022 that said that there had been a position on the retrofitting of sound proofing into conversions, but that the resident had mentioned laminate flooring which would not help the acoustics. The landlord said that it might be more appropriate to consider rehousing as a solution and that it had a surplus of 1-bed properties that might be suitable.
The landlord sent an internal email on 4 March 2022 to make arrangements for a surveyor to visit the property to look at the ‘repair issues at hand’.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 March 2022 to ask it to revisit his complaint as he did not believe it had been investigated as thoroughly as it should have been. The resident said that he had raised the issue of the door and the noise transference numerous times in the previous year and as recently as February 2022.
The landlord emailed the landlord on 11 March 2022 to say that it had reviewed the resident’s personal repairs history and could not see any repair reports regarding the door and therefore it could not alter its complaint decision. The landlord confirmed that the LHM had contacted a repairs manager about possible solutions to address his noise concerns. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if he remained unhappy with the complaint response for it to be escalated to stage 2 of the complaint procedure.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 13 March 2022 that said his complaint was about the replacement of the front door and that he had not made a complaint regarding a repair.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 March 2022 to report noise nuisance from the neighbouring property related to groups of people playing loud music, drinking, and leaving their front door and the communal door open for people to enter the building.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 18 March 2022 which confirmed it had received a report of ASB from the resident about his neighbour the day before. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of its ASB action plan, a diary sheet, a declaration of consent form and an ASB leaflet. The action plan said that contact would take place fortnightly, and that the resident was to complete the diary sheets and use the noise app for recording noise incidents. The landlord provided the resident with a user guide for a noise app and a link to the Council’s website where he could find information about noise nuisance.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 24 March 2022 and apologised for the delay in its response. The landlord said:
1. It understood that the resident had made a complaint regarding the front door, but that the planning team had already confirmed when he could expect the front door to be renewed.
2. The door renewal date that it had provided was the correct response, regardless of the condition of the door but it accepted that the resident might be frustrated with the response.
3. It had not identified a service failure and had been unable to find any repair reports to address the resident’s concerns about the front door in the last 6 months.
4. The resident should report his concerns about the front door as a repair. The landlord also suggested the resident could supply photographs to strengthen his case so that the repair or a potential decision to renew the door earlier than the renewal date might be considered.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 25 March 2022 which said that he had replied to the planning team and had not received a reply. The resident said that he had been frustrated because the planning team had claimed that renewals were completed every 25-30 years, yet he had lived in the property since 1997 and the door had been there then. The resident said that he was “being given the runaround.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 March 2022 to say that a surveyor had visited the property the same day to complete a stock condition survey. The resident said he had asked the surveyor about the condition of the front door and had been told it required immediate replacement and that it was a health and safety risk due to its overall condition. The resident advised the landlord to listen to its own employees and to address the serious concerns instead of putting tenants lives at risk. The resident sent a further email later the same day in which it asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to the next level.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 March 2022 to report concerns about a dividing wall between his property and his neighbour’s property. He further said that he had arranged for a company to inspect the wall and that he wished to submit evidence because the company had said it was a health and safety matter. The landlord told the resident that the matter regarding the wall would be considered an ASB matter rather than a repair matter.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 28 March 2022 which said that the planning team had provided him with a date for his front door renewal. The landlord also said that renewals were not guaranteed and were subject to budgets and the repair cycle.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 March 2022 to say that he had made an ASB complaint about his neighbour on 17 March 2022 and received a letter confirming he would be contacted within 5 days but that he had not been contacted. He also said he considered the matter to be more of a repair issue to do with the condition of the wall between him and his neighbour. The resident said that he had been waiting for a surveyor’s appointment, but that this had not been progressed since his previous LHM had left the organisation.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 4 April 2022 that said the problem with his property was historical. He said a previous LHM had arbitrated between the neighbouring properties but that the landlord had not done anything to investigate or resolve the issues. The resident said the property had been neglected. The resident said there was not an ASB problem with his neighbour and no neighbourly issues and that he wanted a surveyor to investigate the matter which he said was a structural issue and a health and safety concern. The resident said that the wall material could be a fire hazard and the depth of the walls allowed sound to penetrate throughout the property. The resident said that when he had tried to raise a repair about the matter he was told he could not raise a repair because it was an ASB issue.
The landlord sent an email on 4 April 2022 which was addressed to the resident and an internal member of staff. The landlord said that because the resident was unhappy with the outcome of the stage 1 complaint the matter would be escalated to stage 2. The landlord asked for information about the next steps to be provided to the resident.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 27 April 2022. The landlord said:
1. The stage 2 complaint had been received on 6 April 2022 and was about the replacement of the front door, noise transference from a neighbouring property and the handling of stage 1 complaint.
2. It was satisfied with its handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint and did not uphold this element of the complaint.
3. The door had originally been due for replacement in 2025-26 but an inspection that it had completed in March 2022 confirmed that it required replacement sooner. Therefore, the door replacement had been placed in a 2023-24 replacement programme and any further issues with the door would need to be raised as a repair until it was replaced.
4. The landlord had acquired the building in 1973 and was satisfied that there was nothing wrong with the construction and that there were no repair issues.
5. The business did not retrofit soundproofing and had concluded that the resident’s concerns were lifestyle issues.
6. If the resident wished to continue with his ASB case he should contact his LHM.
7. The complaint was not upheld due to the correct advice being given in the stage 1 complaint response and no further action being required.
8. Its response concluded stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure and if the resident remained dissatisfied he should contact this Service.

Events that occurred after the internal complaint procedure had been exhausted.

The landlord completed a review of the resident’s complaint on 14 July 2022. The landlord:
1. Identified that there had been a misunderstanding in the stage 1 investigation because the case handler had believed that the resident’s complaint was about the door to his property and not the communal front entrance door.
2. Recognised that this had led to an incorrect outcome and had resulted in a request to escalate the complaint on the 28 March 2022.
3. Identified that it would be appropriate to award the resident £100 compensation for its poor complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a door replacement.

The resident reported concerns about the communal front door to the landlord on 6 August 2021. It is not clear to this Service when the landlord inspected the door, but the landlord confirmed it would chase a response to get repairs orders raised 2 months later, on 5 October 2021. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to have taken to inspect the door and raise repairs.
The landlord sent an internal email on 8 October 2021 which confirmed that the door renewal had been declined because it was technically functional, although letting out heat. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff to reach a decision about the works that were required. However, there is no evidence that this was communicated to the resident who continued to live in the property with the expectation that the landlord would repair or renew the door. This would have caused unnecessary inconvenience to the resident that could have been avoided if the landlord had communicated its decision when it had been reached.
The resident raised his concerns about the door with the landlord again on 10 January 2022 by which time the landlord had already decided not to renew the door. The landlord did not reply to the resident about its decision not to renew the door until over a month later on 15 February 2021, and this was an unreasonable about of time for the landlord to have taken to provide this information.
The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his request for a door replacement in his stage 1 and stage 2 complaint. However, the landlord had mistakenly misunderstood the resident’s complaint to be about his own front door and not the communal front door. This resulted in the landlord issuing a decision not to uphold the resident’s complaint which it later upheld in its own assessment of its complaint handling. The landlord was expected to have communicated clearly with its contractor and the resident to correctly determine the door that was the subject of the complaint.. The landlord did not recognise its mistake when reviewing its stage 1 complaint response. This caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident in pursuing a response to his concerns about the door. Furthermore it caused delays in providing the appropriate response about the renewal of the door.
Upon reviewing the complaint at stage 2, the landlord agreed to renew the door in the 2023-24 financial year which was much sooner that it had previously communicated to the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider renewing the door earlier following its more recent (28 March 2022), assessment of the condition of the door. However, the landlord did not recognise the inconvenience, time and trouble pursuing the matter had caused the resident such as by offering compensation, or an apology and this was unreasonable.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise transference and soundproofing issues.

The resident reported concerns about noise transference from the fireplace to the landlord on 3 August 2021. The landlord was expected to have progressed the resident’s reports when they were first reported, such as by providing a repair appointment. However it is apparent that the resident had to report the matter to the landlord again 20 days later on 23 August 2021. The landlord’s lack of response to the resident’s concerns about the fireplace was unreasonable and caused time and trouble to the resident in pursuing a response.
The landlord advised the resident that a repair order had been raised for the fireplace on 8 October 2021, however it is not clear to this Service on what date the repair had been booked as we have not seen any evidence that a date had been scheduled. Notwithstanding, the landlord provided this advice to the resident 66 calendar days after he had first reported the matter, and this was inappropriate. The landlord was expected to have completed the routine repair within its policy timescale of 28 calendar days. This delay would have caused inconvenience to the resident and his neighbour who lived in properties where sound transference had been a concern.
Despite having advised the resident that a repair order had been raised on 8 October 2021, the resident chased the landlord about the fireplace repair again on 7 December 2021 and was advised that it would be completed 2 days later on 9 December 2021. It is unclear why the repair was not completed sooner, given that on 8 October 2021 the landlord had notified the resident that it would complete a repair. Furthermore it was inappropriate for the landlord not to have communicated the repair appointment to the resident and for him to have had to contact the landlord again for this information.
The landlord completed the fireplace repair on 9 December 2021 which was 128 days after the resident had first reported his concerns and 100 days later that the landlord’s policy timescale for a routine repair. This was inappropriate and would have caused further inconvenience to the resident and his neighbour.
In its stage 1 complaint the landlord said that it had made arrangements for the LHM to make contact with the resident to investigate his ASB reports during the week of 7 March 2022. It is evident that the landlord’s ASB policy does not include a timescale for responding to an initial report of ASB but information on its website said it would respond to reports of ASB within 5 working days. Given that the resident had reported his concerns about noise transference on 20 February 2022 and provided further details on 27 February 2022 it was inappropriate for the landlord not to have contacted him sooner.
It is evident to this Service that the landlord was uncertain about how to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB, because he had been specific that the complaint was not about his neighbour but about the structure of the property and the quality of the property conversion. The landlord’s internal email of 3 March 2022 raised a reasonable concern that treating the matter as a potentially unsolvable ASB case would inappropriately raise the resident’s expectations as to the action it could take. Furthermore the landlord suggested that the matter could best be addressed by the planned repairs team and with the installation of soundproofing. Whilst it is apparent that the matter was complicated and belonged to more than one staff team, the landlord was in any event expected to have determined an appropriate course of action so as to bring resolution to the matter. It is the view of this Service that the landlord would have benefitted from investigating both the property structure and the behavioural aspects of the matter.
The landlord subsequently categorised the resident’s further reports of noise transference as reports of ASB and opened an ASB case on 18 March 2022. The information the landlord provided to the resident was comprehensive and offered appropriate advice for gathering evidence of noise transference via the use of diary sheets and a noise app. This was in keeping with the advice the landlord published on its website and therefore appropriate. However the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the condition and structure of the property, nor manage his expectations about what solutions it would put in place, and this was unreasonable.
This Service has not seen any evidence of further action taken by the landlord to address the reports of noise transference it had received from the resident. It is apparent that the landlord had not closed the ASB case prior to issuing its final stage 2 complaint response. Furthermore that it had continued to consider the matter to be a lifestyle issue and not related to the property structure. However, the landlord was expected to have progressed the ASB case so as to have found a solution to the matter, or to have written to the resident to explain why it could not do more than it had. Instead the landlord said the resident should continue to report the matter as ASB thereby offering no tangible solution. This was unreasonable and aggravated the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as the landlord neither sought to resolve the noise transference and/or communicate clearly about the matter.
The landlord suggested that it had a supply of one-bed properties and therefore could rehouse the resident in an internal email it sent on 4 March 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord made this offer to the resident, but in any event this approach was unlikely to have resolved the matter for the resident’s neighbour or any other resident that took up occupation of the property. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord fully investigated other alternative solutions to address the resident’s concerns prior to classifying the noise reports as reports of ASB. Given the resident said that he had arranged his own contractor to assess the property condition and could provide evidence to the landlord that there had been health and safety concerns present, this was unreasonable.
It is not within the remit of this Service to assess whether soundproofing the resident’s property would have resolved the matter, nor are we qualified to do so. However, the landlord has said that it has a ‘position’ not to install soundproofing in its properties.. The landlord referred to this position in its stage 2 complaint response when it said that the business did not install soundproofing in its properties. Whilst it is the landlord’s right to make its own decisions about the services it provides it is concerning that the landlord has adopted a blanket position which affects the entirety of its housing stock, rather than allowing itself the discretion to assess individual cases.
Taking all matters into account this Services finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference and soundproofing issues.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not send an acknowledgement of the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 5 working days of receipt.
2. Referred to its stage 1 complaint as a final response and this was misleading given that the stage 1 complaint could be escalated to a final stage.
3. Did not investigate fully the resident’s complaint and had mistakenly thought the complaint was about the resident’s own front door and not the communal front door. This led the landlord to make to an incorrect decision about the complaint.
4. Did not provide advice to the resident about how to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint procedure.
5. Did not appropriately acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint by providing advice about what it understood the complaint to be about and when it would provide a final response.
6. Reported that the resident’s stage 2 complaint had been made on 6 April 2022, instead of 28 March 2022.
7. Did not fully consider its handling of the complaint in its stage 2 complaint response and therefore did not offer the resident any type of compensation for its errors in its previous complaint response.
8. The landlord failed to properly investigate the complaint and consider whether any compensation was required to resolve the complaint satisfactorily and only did so after the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure and had been accepted by this Service for investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a door replacement.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise transference and soundproofing issues.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to explain when it would complete a door renewal which caused time and trouble to the resident. The landlord subsequently misunderstood the location of the door which led to a delay in providing an appropriate response to the resident.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of noise transference from the fireplace within an appropriate timescale and in line with its repairs policy. Furthermore it did not find an appropriate solution to address the noise transference issues the resident reported prior to issuing its final response to the resident. Instead it considered the matter to be a lifestyle issue and continued to suggest the resident should report it as ASB.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code during its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord misunderstood an element of the complaint, and this resulted in it unnecessarily being escalated to stage 2. The landlord failed to properly investigate the complaint and consider whether compensation was appropriate.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in managing the door renewal request, its handling of reports of noise transference and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident the £100 previously offered for its complaints handling failings if this has not already been paid.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £650 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £300 for time, trouble, and inconvenience associated with the handling of repairs to the communal front door of the resident’s property.
2. £300 for inconvenience related to the landlord’s handling of reports of noise transference between the properties.
3. £50 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to inspect the property to determine if there are repairs that can be completed to minimise noise transference between the 2 properties. If repairs are required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the repairs, together with a timetable for them to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.
If the door renewal has not already taken place, and within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with an update as to when the communal front door will be renewed and to inspect the door to establish if repairs are required prior to its renewal.

The landlord is recommended to review the learning on this case in respect of its management of reports of noise nuisance. It is recommended that the landlord reviews and incorporates the best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise complaints.