Raven Housing Trust Limited (202017342)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017342

Raven Housing Trust Limited

19 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 the resident’s concerns about:
1. noise transference.
2. fire safety in the building.
3. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since 2007. The property is a second-floor studio flat. The resident has dyslexia and suffers from anxiety and depression.
The resident complained that the landlord did not have adequate sound proofing between his flat and the flat above. The resident advised the landlord on 5 October 2020 that there was no soundproofing between the flats. On 25 January 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it was implementing a noise complaints procedure and was reviewing requests for sound insulation. It was considering its funds for completing these works.
On 30 March 2021 the resident contacted this Service and complained that the landlord did not have soundproofing or fireproofing between the properties. He also complained about the landlord’s level of response, complaint handling, and that it did not consider how the issues affected his mental health. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted a move and compensation. This Service provided a copy of the complaint to the landlord on the same date.
On 14 April 2021 in its stage 1 complaint response the landlord referred to neighbour disputes about noise disturbances in 2018 and 2019. It advised the resident that it had no record of the noise issues affecting the resident’s mental health and requested further details. The landlord advised that there were no grounds for a transfer, however, alternative options were available if the resident was interested. It did not hold records of any current issues from the flat above and asked him to clarify the issues so that they could open a new case. The landlord held no record of fireproofing concerns and asked the resident to provide his query. The landlord advised that if he wishes to appeal the complaint decision, he needs to provide a reason, or contact this Service.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service on 16 April 2021 because the landlord had not considered the number of times that he had contacted it about the soundproofing issues. This Service contacted the landlord on the same date and asked it to send the resident a stage 2 complaint response. In an internal email on 19 April 2021, the landlord referred to a phone call with the resident on the same day. This email confirmed that it had not considered the number of times the resident reported the soundproofing issues.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and acknowledged that it had discussed the soundproofing issue with the resident on 25 January 2021 when it outlined that it was reviewing a noise nuisance complaints procedure. The landlord apologised that this was not in its stage 1 complaint response but confirmed that the outcome remained the same. The landlord advised the resident that he had 4 weeks to appeal the decision.
The resident advised this Service on 30 April 2021 that he had received a stage 2 response from the landlord, but he remained unhappy. He advised this Service on 18 May 2021 that he would post correspondence received from the landlord. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 June 2021 to advise that it was closing the complaint as they had received no further correspondence from him. The resident called the landlord and this Service on 24 June 2021 to advise that his complaint was not closed. This Service emailed the landlord on 24 June 2021 and advised it to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 June 2021 and explained the condition in which the resident can appeal the complaint response and extended his period to appeal until 5 July 2021. The resident called the landlord 7 times between the 28 June 2021 and 28 July 2021 until he spoke with the landlord about the complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 July 2021 to ask if he wanted to open an ASB case with regards to the noise issue.
Between 2 September 2021 and 11 October 2021, the resident called the landlord 6 times to discuss the complaint and asked it to escalate the complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord returned these calls. On 20 October 2021, the resident wrote a letter to the landlord requesting a stage 2 response from the landlord. On 21 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and asked him to clarify what he required from it. It requested further information on his concerns about fire safety and advised that he should open a noise nuisance case.
On 22 October 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord and confirmed that the resident was complaining about the lack of soundproofing between the properties and not antisocial behaviour (ASB). This Service asked the landlord to provide the resident with a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 October 2021 and provided a copy of its previous correspondence and again advised that he can open an ASB case.
On 18 November 2021, the resident called this Service to advise that he had not received a copy of the stage 2 complaint response. This Service wrote to the landlord and advised that action could be taken in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme if the landlord did not provide a stage 2 complaint response within 5 working days.
The landlord called the resident on 23 November 2021 to discuss the issues and provided its complaint response on 24 November 2021. It provided the resident with information on soundproofing in the property. It advised that it had explained in previous correspondence that it would not fit soundproofing unless there was evidence of proven excessive noise issues. It confirmed that it complied with building regulations in relation to fire safety and it held a valid fire risk assessment. The landlord apologised that it had not provided the resident with the requested information in a timely fashion. It did not uphold the complaint but offered to arrange an inspection of the property.
When the resident brought his complaint to this Service, he remained unhappy because he did not feel the landlord verified his concerns about firewalls and sound proofing. As a resolution to the complaint the resident wanted to move property and compensation for having to deal with the issues.

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 are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;

b. put things right, and;

c. learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about noise transference

The landlord provided this Service with a flowchart of how it deals with reports of noise complaints. If there are no incident logs completed and no tenancy breaches that contribute to the noise, the landlord will consider if the property is overcrowded or if other factors contribute to the noise. If not, the landlord will consider a sound comparison check between properties. If noise levels are audible, it will consider if it can provide works/insulation to address noise transference. If works cannot be completed it will provide a report as to why not. It will then consider practical adaptions that can be made, including improved carpeting. If practical adaptations cannot be made it will consider if the resident can be supported into alternative accommodation.
The landlords safeguarding policy states that if a safeguarding concern is raised relating to a customer, staff should report this to their line manager, its safeguarding lead or via the dedicated e-mail address, and appropriate action will be taken.
In cases concerning noise transference, it is not the role of this Service to determine whether the levels of noise transference breached Building Regulations or any other standards. This investigation will assess how the landlord responded to reports of issues with noise transference in accordance with its policies and procedures and appropriate in all the circumstances.
Throughout its correspondence with the resident, the landlord asked him if he wanted to open a noise nuisance case against the neighbour, however, the resident’s report related to noise transference because of the lack of sound proofing in the property. The landlord failed to identify the resident’s issue which meant that it failed to apply its noise complaint procedure beyond the first stage.
If it had followed the flowchart it provided to this Service, it could have considered options of reducing the noise through sound proofing, adaptions, and potentially even a property move, which was requested by the resident. The landlord’s failure to apply its procedures was not appropriate and caused distress to the resident as he continues to live in a property in which he feels the noise transference is impacting his mental health.
As part of its initial complaint investigation, the landlord noted that the resident’s neighbour was a leaseholder. Internal correspondence noted that it would contact the neighbour to ask if there was soundproofing. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the neighbour or considered any practical measures to address noise transference. It could have written to the leaseholder to ask for an inspection, carried out a noise test, and considered what practical measures it could take to reduce noise transference, if soundproofing was not an option.
The spotlight report on noise produced by this Service encourages landlords to separate noise reports from ASB procedures where possible and think creatively and practically about how problems can be resolved. The landlord could have put this practical thinking to good use in this case with a more resolution focussed approach. Its failure to take any action to address the report of noise transference was inappropriate and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In internal correspondence of 8 April 2021, the landlord refers to the resident’s mental health issues and wondered who supported him. However, there is no evidence that the landlord appropriately investigated its concern. The landlord failed to show due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed the risk to the resident to identify potential hazards when it became aware of a potential health risk. Its failure to take any measures to assess the risk was unreasonable and unsympathetic in the circumstances.
Based on the evidence, it is unclear if the landlord was aware of the resident’s dyslexia. However, had the landlord carried out a risk assessment, it more likely would have identified the vulnerability and considered reasonable adjustments in its communications.
In its initial complaint response, it wrote to the resident and asked him to provide more details about the impact the noise issues were having on his mental health. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on its concerns after this letter or considered the resident’s vulnerabilities. Given that it had been made aware that the noise transference was impacting the resident’s mental health, it is a significant failure of the landlord for not being responsive to the resident’s individual circumstances. Its lack of response was unsympathetic and unreasonable.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised the resident that based on the evidence, there was no grounds for a property move, but it can provide alternative ways for the resident to move if he was interested. Because the resident is dyslexic, it is unclear if he understood that this information. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted a transfer. In these circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide further assistance to ensure that the resident understood his options.
This Service cannot assess what may have happened if the resident applied for a transfer using alternative options, however, the landlord’s failure to carry out a risk assessment and consider potential vulnerabilities was inappropriate.
On 27 April 2021 the landlord referred to its previous contact with him on 25 January 2021, when it advised that it was considering what measures it could take to reduce noise transference, including soundproofing. This was subject to its budget. Based on the evidence, there has been no communication to the resident, even in its complaint responses, to confirm if soundproofing would be included in its budget. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide this information and manage the resident’s expectations given the nature of the complaint. This caused further frustration to the resident.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 24 November 2021, the landlord advised that it had explained in previous responses its policy on sound proofing. This Service has reviewed the landlord’s written communications to the resident between 14 April 2021 and 22 October 2021, but there was no explanation of its sound proofing policy. Based on the evidence provided, the stage 2 complaint response was the first time that the landlord confirmed its position regarding the soundproofing and confirmed that it had complied with building regulations. This was an unreasonable delay in providing this information to the resident.
This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about noise transference. The landlord failed to identify that the report was about noise transference rather than ASB. As such, the landlord inappropriately focussed on its ASB policy and did not apply its process of responding to noise reports beyond the first stage, and it should have. It failed to consider any practical measures to reduce the noise, in fact, it failed to take any action to investigate or address the noise transference. The landlord failed to carry out a risk assessment when it became aware of the resident’s mental health concerns and did not consider the residents dyslexia. It did not effectively communicate its policies on soundproofing, or alternative options for a move.
There were several failings identified in this investigation, and it missed several opportunities for the landlord to identify its failings and put things right. In particular, its failure to identify the complaint issue and its failure to carry out a risk assessment were significant and caused distress, frustration, and inconvenience to the resident in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (2005) sets out that the responsible person for multi-occupied residential buildings must carry out a fire assessment in communal areas, making sure precautions and procedures are in place to protect occupants in case of fire. This Service notes that there are no specific time periods in law for how often fire risk assessments must be carried out or reviewed, the requirement is for the assessment to be reviewed “regularly” to make sure it is up to date.
The evidence shows that the landlord is complying with The Regulatory Reform Order as it is undertaking regular fire risk assessments of the building to identify and mitigate risks. It completed a fire risk assessment on 28 April 2021.
The resident initially raised concerns about fire safety in the block on 30 March 2021. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns until it provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 November 2021, when it confirmed that it held a valid fire risk assessment. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing the resident this information.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay, it did not consider that the resident had raised mental health concerns because of this issue. This delay caused further distress to the resident and represents a service failure.

Complaint handling

The landlord operated a 3-stage complaints policy. At stage 1, it would attempt to resolve the complaint informally within 5 working days. Stage 2 is the formal complaint stage. A manager will investigate the complaint and offer a face-to-face meeting. The landlord will provide a response within 10 working days and attempt to resolve the complaint within 30 days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can request to appeal the outcome to stage 3 within 14 working days. An appeal could be made if key information presented as part of the original complaint had not been considered. When an appeal was accepted it would be heard by a panel for review. At all stages in the complaints process, the landlord would advise the resident how it can contact the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The resident brought his complaint to the landlord through this Service on 30 March 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 March 2021 and provided its complaint response on 14 April 2021. This investigation has identified that the landlord did not discuss the complaint issues with the resident before it provided its initial complaint response. This was inappropriate and because it failed to appropriately investigate the complaint, it failed to identify the complaint issue of inadequate soundproofing and fire safety. This failure contributed to the landlord’s delayed response to the resident’s concerns.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord requested information on outstanding noise issues, what his fire safety concerns were, and what impact the issues were having on its mental health. This was inappropriate. The stage 1 complaint response should have been a response to the issues and not a query letter.
If the landlord had applied its own policy, it would have offered a face-to-face meeting with the resident. There is no evidence that it made this offer. This was unfair because the resident had dyslexia and reported mental health concerns. If the landlord had applied its own policy, it may have identified the resident’s vulnerability and completed a more appropriate complaint investigation and response. This failure contributed to the resident’s frustration and distress.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint through this Service on 16 April 2021, because the landlord failed to acknowledge the number of times that he had reported the lack of soundproofing. This Service asked the landlord to provide a final response within 20 working days. In a further letter on 27 April 2021, the landlord agreed that it had failed to address the issue and explained its potential plans for soundproofing. The landlord’s complaint policy states that if it did not consider key evidence in its initial investigation the complaint can be appealed. As such, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint through its own policy. The landlord’s failure delayed the resident in bringing the complaint to this Service.
This Service contacted the landlord again on 24 June 2021 and advised that the resident wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 June 2021 to advise he could appeal the original complaint response. There is evidence that since the 1 July 2021 until the 28 July 2021 phoned the landlord 7 times to discuss the complaint. On 28 July 2021, the landlord asked him if he wanted to open an ASB case about the noise.
This was inappropriate because, based on the evidence, the resident did not have an ASB issue. Given the resident’s dyslexia, it was inappropriate for the landlord to be unresponsive to the resident’s telephone calls. It failed to treat the resident fairly in the circumstances which caused delay, frustration, and distress to the resident.
On 22 October 2021, this Service advised that the complaint was not about ASB and asked the landlord to provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. This Service contacted the landlord on 18 November 2021 and again requested a final response letter. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 24 November 2021. This was 7 months after the resident requested a complaint escalation. This was unreasonable and the landlord failed to follow its complaints policy.
There is evidence that the landlord discussed the complaint issues with the resident by telephone before it issued its stage 2 complaint response. It identified that the issues were about noise transference because of lack of sound proofing and fire safety. It provided information on its compliance with these issues. This was appropriate, but as already identified in this report the landlord delayed in providing the information.
In its final complaint response, the landlord failed to address the resident’s mental health concerns or its level of response, communication, and complaint handling. This was an opportunity for the landlord to address its failings. It should have apologised for the communication and took steps to understand his mental health concerns. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action to put things right, and it should have.
The final complaint response letter did not advise the resident how to escalate his complaint or provide this Service’s details. As such the landlord’s final response letter was not compliant with its complaints policy.
Each of the resident’s complaint and complaint escalation requests were made through this Service. This indicates a poor relationship between the landlord and resident. On balance, it is unlikely that the landlord would have escalated the complaint appropriately, but for the intervention of this Service. The landlord failed on 3 occasions to escalate the complaint despite this Service’s request. This caused time, trouble and delay to the resident and represents maladministration.
This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. Its failure to appropriately investigate the complaint and identify the complaint issues had a direct impact on how it handled the noise and fire safety issues. There is no evidence that the landlord showed due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 by considering the resident’s dyslexia in its complaint correspondence and its communication was poor. The landlord did not follow its own complaint process correctly. It failed to escalate the complaint within appropriate timescales, and it is unlikely that the landlord would have escalated the complaint through its procedures if not for the intervention of this Service.
This Service recognises that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy in March 2023, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. If it has not already done so, the landlord should provide training to its staff so that complaints are properly identified, investigated, and escalated through the appropriate timescales in line with its revised policy. In the first instance, it should review the complaint handling issues identified in this investigation and apply learning to improve its complaint handling processes.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about noise transference.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that the landlord contact the resident and identify any reasonable adjustments required for communication with the resident going forward.
It is ordered that the landlord apologises to the resident in person for the failures identified in this report.
It is ordered that the landlord, when apologising to the resident, provides information about alternative options for a property transfer and reasonable assistance should he wish to avail of these options.
It is ordered that the landlord, in line with its procedures, surveys the property to assess the noise and determine if soundproofing or practical measures can be taken to reduce the noise transference.
It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £1300, compromising:
1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. £300 for the time, trouble, and delay in its complaint handling.
The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report Noise Complaints: Time to be heard (attached) and consider the benefits of implementing a good neighbourhood management policy separate to its ASB policy.
It is recommended that the landlord provide training to its staff so that complaints are properly identified, investigated, and escalated appropriately through the appropriate timescales.
It is recommended that the landlord review the complaint handling issues found in this investigation to identify learning that can be applied to improve its complaint handling processes.

https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Spotlight-Noise-complaints-final-report-October-2022.pdf