Peabody Trust (202220783)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220783

Peabody Trust

24 April 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s noise reports.
2. The Ombudsman will also investigate:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
   2. The landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

3. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat situated in a converted house.
4. The resident reported noise from an upstairs neighbour and subsequently raised a complaint about this to the landlord. This Service has not seen evidence of when the initial noise report was made, or when the resident raised her complaint.
5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 31 October 2022, in which it said that it needed the resident to provide diary sheets and audio recordings before it would consider installing sound recording equipment.
6. On 5 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s chief executive about the complaint. She then filled in the landlord’s webform on 7 December 2022. The landlord emailed her the same day to say that there was already a complaint logged, and that she needed to follow its escalation process.
7. The resident contacted this Service on 29 December 2022, saying she had logged a complaint with the landlord on 14 December 2022 and heard nothing back. On 5 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord asking it to escalate her complaint, and on 7 February 2023 the landlord acknowledged this escalation request.
8. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 22 March 2023 in which it said that whilst its policy said that laminate was not allowed in upstairs properties, the neighbour had not breached their tenancy agreement. It said that noise transference was normal in this type of property.
9. The landlord acknowledged that it could not locate the diary sheets the resident had sent, and offered £150 compensation to recognise this. It said that it had listened to the noise recordings she had sent, and the noise did not constitute a nuisance, however it had asked the neighbour to put rugs down. It said it had offered mediation, which the resident had declined. It also acknowledged a delay in responding to the complaint and offered £50 compensation for this.
10. The resident remained unhappy with this response, as she said any rugs the neighbour had put down had not stopped the noise problem. On 6 April 2023 she contacted this Service and asked us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s noise reports

11. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that laminate or wooden flooring must not be laid in the property without first getting its written permission, unless the property is a basement or ground floor property. It also says that if the flooring causes a nuisance to neighbours it may ask a resident to use soft floor coverings or remove it completely. The landlord’s tenant improvements policy sets out that it does not grant permission for laminate flooring in properties where any of the rooms are situated above residential space belonging to someone else.
12. The earliest record the landlord has provided is its stage 1 response, so it is not clear when the resident first reported the noise to the landlord, or exactly what noise she reported. She told this service that the noise is due to her upstairs neighbour having laminate flooring, which she said was a breach of the tenancy. She said the noise of her neighbour moving around above, and their day to day conversations, disturb her sleep causing her stress.
13. In the stage 1 response the landlord said it would only consider installing sound recording equipment once the resident had provided audio recordings and diary sheets. It later provided the resident with a WhatsApp number to send the audio recordings to.
14. In her email to the chief executive on 5 December 2022 the resident said her neighbour was walking heavily on the laminate flooring, which was not allowed. She said she felt that the landlord’s response was biased and had not taken her concerns seriously. On 6 December 2022 the landlord emailed her to say that she needed to provide 2 weeks of detailed diary sheets and audio recordings. It said that it could not force the neighbour to remove the flooring until these were received.
15. The landlord has not provided complete contact records, so this Service does not know when the resident sent over audio recordings, or when she posted completed diary log sheets. However, in its stage 2 response of 22 March 2023, the landlord says it received audio recordings, and having reviewed these, did not consider the noise level to be classified as noise nuisance. It said that it had not been able to locate the diary sheets, despite the resident providing proof of posting them and them being signed for. It offered £150 compensation for misplacing these forms.
16. It said that although it’s policy, and the resident’s tenancy agreement do not allow for laminate flooring, it had reviewed the neighbour’s tenancy agreement and it could not see that a breach had taken place. It said it could not progress enforcement action unless there was a breach of tenancy. However, it had asked the neighbour to put down heavy rugs. The landlord has said that its staff have asked the neighbour to confirm these have been put down, which they have confirmed. The resident also reported having seen the neighbour hanging the rugs out of her window so it is reasonable to conclude the rugs were put in place. However, the resident has told this Service that these rugs have not stopped the noise transference as they don’t cover the laminate in full.
17. It is important to recognise that people’s sensitivity to noise varies from person to person, and what was not perceived by the landlord from listening to WhatsApp recordings as a nuisance does not mean that this level of noise is not the reason for the resident’s reported sleep disturbance. The existence of a clause in the landlord’s policy about laminate flooring demonstrates that it is aware that such flooring can increase noise transference. The landlord has also acknowledged that the type of property also means noise transference is more likely.
18. The landlord told the resident it could not do anything if the neighbour was not breaching their tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman appreciates that if the upstairs neighbour has lived there a long time, their tenancy agreement might be different from the resident’s, and may not forbid laminate flooring. The landlord’s records note that the laminate flooring was already in place when the neighbour moved in, meaning that it is unlikely they could be considered to be in breach of the tenancy agreement, no matter what it says about laminate flooring, if anything.
19. However, this does not mean the landlord could not take any other steps to help resolve the situation. Whilst it could not force the neighbour to replace the laminate with carpet if there was no breach of their tenancy agreement, the landlord could have considered offering to replace the laminate with carpet at its own cost. There is no evidence that it considered this, which would have been reasonable considering its policy on laminate flooring.
20. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s noise reports. By its own admission, this type of property is more likely to have noise transference and its policy does not allow for laminate flooring in these circumstances. Whilst it did not think the noise in the audio recordings provided by the resident were enough to be deemed a nuisance, it has relied on recordings taken by the resident on her mobile phone, rather than professional equipment. It seems likely, given the property and flooring type, that the noise transference would be considered unreasonable, especially over a prolonged period.
21. The landlord has only demonstrated that it has considered its obligations in relation to a possible breach of tenancy agreement. It has failed to demonstrate it has been proactive by trying to find a solution that does not rely on the neighbour’s tenancy agreement. This has led to the situation being protracted and the tension between the resident and the neighbour escalating over time.
22. While no breach of tenancy agreement has been identified by the landlord, there is a reason why its policy usually requires laminate not to be laid down by residents in the upper floors of buildings. It is not completely clear why the upstairs neighbour is not in breach here, and even if they are not, the inclusion of this clause in the policy means that the landlord should do more for the affected resident.
23. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 to recognise the distress caused by its handling of her noise reports. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £400, including the £150 it offered her for misplacing the diary sheets.
24. A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to explore the option of replacing the neighbour’s flooring with carpet, at the landlord’s cost.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

25. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus, took too long and the landlord did not escalate the complaint appropriately.
26. The earliest record the landlord has provided is its stage 1 complaint response of 31 October 2022. It has not provided a copy of any records relating to her raising the complaint. So it has not been possible to assess whether the landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy at this stage.
27. The resident made it clear to the landlord that she was not happy with its response when she emailed the chief executive on 5 December 2022, and when she then filled in its webform on 7 December 2022. The stage 1 response invited her to let it know if she was unhappy with the response and did not set out a clear escalation process. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to accept her clear dissatisfaction as a request to escalate the complaint at this time.
28. The resident said she called the landlord on 14 December 2022 to discuss the complaint and was told she would get a response within 10 days, which she did not. The landlord has not provided any record of this contact.
29. The landlord did not escalate the complaint until 7 February 2023 after she had emailed the chief executive again on 5 and 7 February 2023. It is not clear why it chose to escalate the complaint at this time, but failed to do so when she previously emailed the chief executive.
30. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 March 2023 to chase a response. The landlord responded on 8 March 2023 saying that it would send a response within 20 working days of escalation, which it said was due on 13 March 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a timescale of 20 working days to respond at stage 2. 13 March 2023 was 20 working days after 11 February 2023, which is not when the case should have been escalated, so it is unclear why the landlord set this as a deadline.
31. The landlord did not provide any further update or explanation for its delay before sending its stage 2 response on 22 March 2023. This was 32 working days after it had accepted the resident’s contact as an escalation request, and 74 working days after 5 December 2022, when it should have escalated the complaint. This was an unreasonable delay in responding to the complaint. Whilst the landlord did offer £50 compensation to recognise the delay in its stage 2 response, this was not enough to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures.
32. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It has not provided evidence it responded in line with its policy at stage 1 and then it failed to recognise the resident’s requests for escalation for 2 months. When it did escalate the complaint, it still failed to respond within the 20 working days set out in its policy, and did not keep the resident updated about the delay. This led to the resident needing to make phone calls and send additional emails to chase a response.
33. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £50 for cases where “there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and /or fully put them right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay additional compensation of £100 to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays in escalating and responding to the complaint. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £150.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

34. The landlord has acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it misplaced the resident’s diary sheets, potentially leading to a delay in its handling of the noise reports.
35. It has failed to provide any records from before it issued a stage 1 response in relation to both the noise reports and the complaint. Its contact records are incomplete, meaning it is unclear what action was taken and when.
36. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its knowledge and information management as it has failed to keep complete records.
37. The landlord has recently been asked to self-assess using  the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management as part of a wider order. The landlord has already provided this Service with a copy of its self-assessment, which was carried out after the internal complaints procedure for this complaint was concluded.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response the resident’s noise reports.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its knowledge and information management.

Orders

41. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £550, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
    1. £400 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise reports.
    2. £150 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
42. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

43. The landlord to explore the option of replacing the neighbour’s flooring with carpet, at the landlord’s cost.