Places for People Group Limited (202113014)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113014

Places for People Group Limited

14 April 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbour’s water system.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the landlord at a property that is a first-floor flat in a building with neighbouring flats. In January 2021, he stated that he reported issues to it with a noise which he believed to be coming from his upstairs neighbour’s plumbing. The landlord then arranged on two occasions for its communal heating maintenance contractors to attended to attempt to identify source of the noise, and, during the week of 28 June 2021, a valve was replaced in a neighbouring property in an effort to resolve this, which was unsuccessful.
On 4 July 2021, the resident submitted a recording of the noise to the landlord, and he reported that the noise occurred when his neighbour used their taps. He requested that its operative therefore remain on site for a morning between 8am and 12pm to attempt to witness the sound. The landlord informed the resident on 5 July 2021 that it would re-attend to inspect the properties above and below his.
The resident subsequently raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 9 July 2021, in which he requested compensation for his experience of the noise “from the water system in the flat above” for the last six months. He acknowledged that it had “done [its] absolute best to resolve the situation” but, due to limited access to properties due to coronavirus restrictions and the “intermittent and unpredictable nature of when the noise occurs”, the issue and yet to be resolved.
The resident noted that the landlord had arranged for operatives to be on site all morning on 12 July 2021 to trace the source of the noise. He described the noise as loud, intermittent but frequent, and he reported that this was impacting on his mental health, as the noise was “torture”. The resident requested either a rent reduction or rebate, or a one-off payment of compensation for his experience from the landlord.
The source of the noise was found and rectified by the landlord’s operative in the water system of a flat below the resident’s on 12 July 2021, which was confirmed by him on 22 July 2021, and on the same day he chased a stage one complaint response from it. In reply, it informed him on that date that his communication would be passed on to its team manager for a response. The landlord’s records showed, however, that the complaint was closed by it on 26 July 2021, as the noise issue had been resolved. Another one of its managers then called the resident on 30 July 2021 to further discuss the matter, and his request for compensation, and, on 3 August 2021, it offered him a gesture of goodwill payment amounting to two weeks’ rent, which totalled £272.18.
The resident nevertheless escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 9 August 2021, saying that he was not only dissatisfied with the level of compensation that it had offered him, but also with its team manager who had “refused” to speak to him. It subsequently issued its final stage complaint response to him on 6 September 2021, in which it said that he had never been told that he could not speak to the manager in question. The landlord relayed the actions it had taken to resolve the resident’s reports of noise from the water system:
1. He had originally reported the noise to it as coming from his upstairs neighbour’s washing machine. The landlord initially been unable to access the upstairs property due to corona virus restrictions, but it had eventually investigated this and found the washing machine not to be the cause of the noise.
2. The landlord then linked the noise to its communal boilers above the resident’s upstairs neighbour’s property. Its contractors had attended these twice, but they had been unable to find the source of the noise.
3. The landlord’s contractors subsequently replaced a valve in a communal radiator, which it suspected could be the source of the noise, but this did not resolve the matter.
4. It then arranged for its contractors to inspect the resident’s property, but he had declined this.
5. The resident agreed to postponing further investigation of the matter until the landlord was again regularly present at the site on a weekly basis. However, he subsequently reported that the noise had worsened and was coming from his upstairs neighbour’s property, which he suggested was from a vacuum cleaner or power tools. The landlord then visited again to investigate this, and it found that this was not the case, however the neighbour had reported a vibrating pipe. It therefore replaced a valve in the neighbour’s property, but this did not remedy the noise either.
6. The landlord’s operative finally suspected that the noise may have originated from a different area of the building, due to a peculiarity of noise transference through the building, and they inspected the property below the resident’s. This property was found to be the source of the noise, which was resolved by the operative’s replacement of a valve there.
The landlord concluded that there had been “exceptional circumstances” in this case, but it found that it had dealt with the issue in a satisfactory manner. It considered that there had been no failure in its service to the resident, and therefore no further compensation would be offered to him by it.
The resident subsequently complained to this Service that six months of his life were severely affected by the noise and vibrations from his downstairs neighbour’s water system, and that the landlord’s gesture of goodwill payment offer to him did not reflect this or the level of rent that he paid it during this period. He added that there was no indication that it gave this further scrutiny under its complaints procedure, the team manager who was to have dealt with his stage one complaint had refused to have direct contact with him, they had not approached him, and its final stage complaint response had incorrectly disputed this. The resident therefore requested approximately £700 to £750 compensation from the landlord to appropriately reflect his “level of suffering” and rent to it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

While the resident has reported that the noise and vibrations from his neighbour’s water system had severely affected his mental health and wellbeing, this Service does not have the authority or expertise to determine liability or award damages for this in the way that a court or insurer might, which is therefore outside of the scope of this investigation. We instead consider whether the landlord has acted fairly in all the circumstances of the case, and if it has recognised any distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced with proportionate compensation, which are addressed below together with a recommendation to enable the resident to seek the above damages.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbour’s water system

The landlord had an obligation, in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement, to repair and maintain the installations in the property and communal areas for the provision of heating and water. It also had a duty to investigate reports of noise when this became a nuisance to him. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the source of the noise reported by the resident, and it was reasonable for it to treat the matter as repair issue as this was reported by him as occurring when water pipes were in use.
When a landlord receives a report of a repair, its first response should be to inspect the issue. It was not disputed that it carried out investigations into the communal heating system present at the resident’s building on two occasions after he began to report noise issues to it from January 2021 onwards, and that a valve was then replaced on a communal radiator by it in June 2021. He additionally accepted that the landlord’s actions had been unavoidably delayed by corona virus restrictions. It also arranged for operatives to be present at the property for a morning in July 2021 to witness the reported noise, and to visit both the upstairs and downstairs neighbouring properties to find the source of the noise and remedy this.
These were reasonable actions by the landlord to address the water system noise reported by the resident. Records have not been provided to show when or how often he reported the noise, nor when it originally attended to inspect the water pipes for this. However, it was not disputed that the noise was intermittent and unpredictable. While the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the length of time that the noise persisted for an approximately six-month period from January to July 2021, he acknowledged that the landlord had done everything possible to remedy this. Therefore, in light of the intermittent nature of the noise, it responded reasonably in its efforts to address the matter.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation is considered where there has been a failure in service provision by it. As it took reasonable steps to address the noise issue reported by the resident and there was no evidence of a failure or omission in its actions, it was appropriate for it to advise him that compensation would not be offered by it to him for this. The purpose of compensation is to ‘put right’ any injustice caused to him by any failure by the landlord. Its offer of a gesture of goodwill payment to the resident instead was therefore in excess of its obligations, and this was a reasonable response to recognise that he had experienced distress and inconvenience in the process of it making appropriate efforts to resolve the noise issue.
The landlord’s offer to the resident in August 2021 of a goodwill gesture payment of two weeks’ rent, amounting to £272.18, was a reasonable offer from it as this recognised any distress and inconvenience that he might have experienced from the noise in proportion to the amounts available under its compensation policy. Although this was not mentioned in its final stage complaint response to him, it has not provided any reason for withdrawing this, and therefore this amount should be paid to him. This is because the landlord’s compensation policy gives it discretion to offer payments of this amount to the resident, but not to pay him damages for illness or personal injury or for insurance claims that are outside of the scope of the policy, for which it has been recommended below to give him information to enable him to make such a claim.
The resident also expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s team manager refusing to communicate with him. There was no evidence that he specifically requested contact from this member of its staff, nor of the member of staff not responding to any direct contact from him. Although the landlord did agree in July 2021 to pass the resident’s communication on to the team manager for a response, after which he was called by another one of its managers, and he subsequently received a gesture of goodwill payment offer from it in August 2021 and a final stage complaint response from it in September 2021.
There was, as a result, evidence of the landlord’s staff engaging with and maintaining contact with the resident throughout the process of his noise reports and complaints about its handling of these. Therefore, there was no evidence of a failure from it to engage with him in this respect, although its response to this in its final stage complaint response was obscure, and so is discussed further below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Both the landlord’s affordable housing complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) state that it should accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. This also applies to the cancelling of a complaint so that, if outstanding issues remain after part of the complaint is resolved, the complaint should remain open so it can ensure that all aspects of the resident’s complaint are addressed appropriately.
In this instance, the landlord cancelled the complaint at stage one of its process in July 2021, when it confirmed that it had resolved the noise issue reported by the resident. However, this was premature as it had yet to address his request for compensation for this. This did not comply with the affordable housing complaints policy or the Code, the latter of which specifies that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint”. A complaint response is not only an opportunity for a landlord to attempt to resolve a resident’s dissatisfaction, but also an opportunity for it to provide clarity on its actions or decisions.
While the landlord maintained regular contact with the resident to discuss his dissatisfaction in this case after it had closed his complaint in July to August 2021, a formal complaint response was not provided to him at stage one, which delayed the resolution of the complaint and required further involvement from him to progress the complaint. This was therefore a failure on its part in the handling of the complaint because it caused him unnecessary additional time and trouble in order to progress and resolve this.
There was no evidence that the resident was informed by the landlord that his complaint had been cancelled by it at stage one, and so this led to him asking for his complaint to be escalated to the final stage by it in August 2021, indicating that he was unaware his complaint had yet to be fully considered at stage one. This was again a failure in the handling of the complaint on its part, as a resident should always be made aware of the status of their complaint.
When the landlord responded to the complaint at the final stage of its complaints procedure in September 2021, it acknowledged that the resident continued to be dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by it and the conduct of its team manager. In its response, however, it set out its position why it had found that there was no failure in its service to him, and therefore why no compensation was offered to him by it for this, but it failed to clarify the amount of the goodwill gesture which had previously been offered to him, or whether this was still available to him.
The landlord’s final stage complaint response was similarly unclear on why it did not consider that there had been failure in the actions of the team manager, stating simply that the resident had never been told by it that he could not speak to the manager. It could have provided a clearer explanation of why it considered that there was no failure on the manager’s part. This final response also neglected to acknowledge that no stage one complaint response had been provided, nor that the complaint not been fully considered or responded to at stage one of its complaints procedure.
In conclusion there were failures by the landlord to handle the complaint correctly. This was by it closing this without the resident’s consent, failing to notify him that it had done so, not fully considering or responding to this at stage one of its complaints procedure, and providing a final stage response which lacked clarity on the issues which he continued to be dissatisfied with. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay £100 compensation to the resident for this, as well as to review its relevant staff training needs.
This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which provides for awards of compensation in this range for instances of failure, including to meet service standards for actions and responses, which had an impact on the resident but were of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for him.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the level of compensation offered by it for its handling of his reports of noise from a neighbour’s water system satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £100 additional compensation within four weeks for its failures in the handling of the resident’s formal complaints.
2. Pay the resident the £272.18 gesture of goodwill payment which it previously offered him within four weeks, if he has not received this already.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Contact the resident to provide him with details to enable him to make a liability insurance claim to it or its insurers for damages for the effect of the noise and vibrations from his neighbour’s water system on his mental health and wellbeing.
2. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of its affordable housing complaints policy and the Code to ensure that formal complaints are handled in accordance with the policy and the Code. This should include consideration of the Code at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/, and of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.