London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202221241)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221241

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

11 July 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of a reported noise nuisance.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

3. The property is a 2-storey 2-bedroom terraced house. The landlord is a Housing Association. The landlord has not listed any known vulnerabilities for the household.
4. In May 2021 the resident first reported a humming/buzzing sound in the property. Further reports were made in August and September 2021, on each occasion the landlord arranged visits by contractors, but the reported sound was not heard. The landlord arranged for noise monitoring equipment to be installed in the property in November 2021, but the device was unable to detect the reported noise.
5. The resident made further reports of noise in 2021 and 2022. In response the landlord arranged further visits to the property, including at least one at night, however the landlord was unable to hear the reported noise.
6. The resident raised a formal complaint on 10 August 2022. She claimed she had been experiencing the loud buzzing and humming sound, particularly at night from the walls, ceilings, and roof of her home for the last 15 months. Although the landlord had sent electricians, pest control and installed a voice recorder, and its staff had undertaken visits, they had been unable to detect the noise. Her GP had also ruled out tinnitus. The landlord had advised they could not investigate the issue further. She claimed the issue was having an impact on her mental health due to lack of sleep. She was unhappy that the landlord had not investigated thoroughly and resolved the issue.
7. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 11 August 2022. As a resolution the landlord arranged for senior staff to visit the property on 8 September 2022, the staff stayed until after 1am but were unable to hear the reported noise.
8. Following contact by this Service, the landlord issued a formal stage 2 response on 10 May 2023. It reviewed all the actions it had taken in response to the resident’s reports and concluded that it had now exhausted all avenues to investigate the issue. It also noted the resident had sourced her own pest control contractors, as she believed there to be something living in the walls, who used heat detecting equipment, but also failed to identify any pests. The landlord advised if the resident could provide evidence of the noise, it would re-attend the property. It also confirmed the £50 compensation it had previously offered for poor communications at stage 1 of her complaint.
9. The resident contacted this Service via email on 7 December 2022 as despite multiple visits the landlord had been unable to resolve the issue. As a resolution she wished the landlord to undertake a full inspection inside and outside her home and to offer solutions to resolve the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

10. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has suggested that reported noise had negatively affected her mental health. The Ombudsman appreciates the reported noise has caused the resident distress and inconvenience, however it is beyond the expertise of the Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the reported noise and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
11. According to both the resident and the landlord the noise was first reported by the resident in May 2021. This investigation, however, will focus on the landlord’s handling of the issue from August 2021, that being 12 months prior to the resident’s initial complaint on 10 August 2022, until the landlord’s final complaint response, issued on 10 May 2023. Events reported, and actions taken by the landlord outside of this period may be referred to in this report for context.
12. This is in line with paragraph 42c of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.

The landlord’s handling of the reported noise nuisance

13. On 4 August 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to advise she could hear a humming sound which she stated was coming from the fuse box. In response the landlord arranged for an electrician to attend the property on 3 September 2021. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 September 2021 and stated she did not think the noise was related to the electrics in the house, but instead wanted the house’s roof and structure to be inspected.
14. The electrician attended on 3 September 2021 as scheduled, and no issues were found with the fuse box and the reported noise was not heard. As the resident had reported a possible electrical issue, this was a reasonable response by the landlord. It also acted in accordance with its Repairs policy which states, “For routine day to day repairs, we will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.”
15. It is unclear from the records provided when the landlord inspected the structure as the resident requested. Although several staff members subsequently visited the property, it is not possible from the information provided to determine exactly when property structure was inspected. This Service is satisfied however, that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by arranging multiple visits to inspect the property even though the dates of these visits are unclear.
16. On the date of the electrical inspection, 3 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and again reported the noise, which she now believed to be from bees or wasps entering the loft space. The landlord arranged for pest control to attend on 17 September 2021 but no pest activity was detected. This was also a reasonable response by the landlord to the resident’s reports. According to the landlord’s ‘Pests Policy’, it is responsible for wasp infestations only when the issue “affects a home because of disrepair.” Although there was no suggestion of disrepair in this case, the landlord’s prompt attendance demonstrated its commitment to resolve the resident’s concerns.
17. In October 2021 the resident made several calls to the landlord regarding the noise and asking for something to be done. The resident stated that both her and her neighbour could hear the noise which was louder at night, and it was possibly coming from another property. In response the landlord stated that it would arrange to visit the property at night.
18. Although a visit by a supervisor appears to have taken place sometime prior to 4 October 2021, it is however unclear whether this visit took place at night as discussed or exactly when it occurred. Despite the resident’s claim her neighbour could also hear the noise, the landlord does not appear to have followed this up by contacting her neighbour. There is also no record of it inspecting the neighbouring properties as possible sources. This was despite landlord staff confirming that the noise could potentially be originating in a neighbouring property due to the nature of terraced housing
19. The landlord’s failure to contact the neighbour or investigate the neighbouring properties was a missed opportunity in this case. By the time of the residents contact with the landlord in October 2021, several visits had already been made to the property by landlord staff and none of them had been able to detect the reported sound. A separate corroborating report of the sound may have enabled the landlord to further identify potential sources. From the records provided the neighbouring properties do not appear to have been investigated as a source of the sound. In this Service’s opinion this is an avenue the landlord should have explored at the time and recommendations have been made regarding this.
20. After a further call by the resident on 12 October 2021 the landlord arranged for sound recording equipment to be delivered to her home on 28 October 2021. The equipment was in place for 2 weeks however it failed to detect the reported noise. This was a reasonable step by the landlord which demonstrated its commitment to investigate the issue and identify the noise reported.
21. An anti-social behaviour (ASB) case was raised regarding the noise on 26 October 2021. The landlord’s ASB policy at the time included, “Noise where it is persistent, deliberate or targeted” as a type of ASB. As the reported noise at the time remain unidentified, this was an appropriate step by the landlord in order for it to accurately record the resident’s reports and its responses. This was a reasonable response by the landlord although it is noted the definition of ASB in the policy relate to “conduct” and there was no suggestion the noise at that time was the result of the actions of any individual. In the absence of another more appropriate avenue to record its investigations, the opening of an ASB case to help address the issue should be seen as a positive step by the landlord.
22. Further reports of the noise, both related to possible pests in the loft, were reported on 6 December 2021 and the 7 March 2022. On both occasions the landlord attempted to arrange for pest control to visit the property, however neither appointment was completed at the resident’s request. Again, though according to its ‘Pest policy’, the landlord was not obliged to deal with reports of this nature, by doing so demonstrated its willingness to resolve the residents’ concerns.
23. On 11 April 2022 the resident reported the buzzing sound as coming from the loft area. Pest control attended on 5 May 2022 but no pest activity was found and the responding technician did not detect any noise. This is further evidence of good service by the landlord by responding promptly to the resident’s reports.
24. On 23 May 2022 the resident reported she believed to be pigeons hatching in the loft. A second job was raised on 30 May 2022 as the resident stated the pigeons were keeping her awake. Pest control was arranged and attended on 8 June 2022 and no activity was found, however bird proofing was installed in the loft to prevent any access. The landlord again demonstrated its commitment to investigating despite recent visits by pest control which had reported no issues.
25. Following the resident’s complaint a joint visit by senior staff took place on 8 September 2022. Thermal imaging was used in the property to detect any pest activity but none was found. One staff member stayed at the property until 1:15am – as the resident suggested the noise was louder during the night – but no noise was heard. This was good service by the landlord which demonstrated its commitment to address the resident’s concerns and investigate the reported noise.
26. Following contact by the resident’s MP in November 2022, a full pest control investigation was requested by the landlord. The property’s loft space was again examined on 3 February 2023 for pest activity, utilising crawl boards and baiting. There was no evidence of pest activity and baits that had been laid previously were untouched, the technician also listened for buzzing/humming noise but was unable to hear anything. The landlord subsequently installed a mesh covering over all the air bricks in the property at the recommendation of pest control to prevent the potential entry of pests into the property.
27. The landlord’s records also indicate it inspected the resident’s plumbing as a potential source, although this too was unsuccessful in locating or identifying the noise. The landlord’s action demonstrated its ongoing commitment to respond positively to the resident’s reports and exhaust all avenues in its investigations.
28. Overall, the landlord’s investigation of the reported noise was reasonable and thorough. The landlord made multiple visits to the property in an attempt to identify and locate the source of the noise. It also responded promptly and appropriately to the resident’s reports, despite the reports of pests falling outside its responsibilities as a landlord. Although there is no record of it inspecting neighbouring properties and it did not verify witness reports, these are minor failings in an otherwise comprehensive response to the resident’s reports. These oversights however do not reach the level of service failure.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint

29. The landlord’s stage 1 response issued on 11 August 2022 upheld the resident’s complaint and proposed a joint visit by senior staff to the resident’s property as a resolution. Although the resident accepted the proposed visit, the response failed to address all of the resident’s complaint. The resident stated she believed the landlord had failed to investigate to a high standard and to identify the noise. By upholding the complaint, the landlord has agreed with the resident but has provided no reason for this decision.
30. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states, “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”. The stage 1 response failed this requirement as it did not define the complaint nor address it properly. In this case the lack of detail in the response was a missed opportunity for the landlord to establish the actions it had taken in response to the resident’s reports, and to identify any failings to be remedied.
31. Following the visit proposed at stage 1 the resident was emailed on 9 September 2022 advising that as all avenues had been exhausted the complaint was now closed. It is unclear whether this email was meant as stage 2 response to the complaint or a supplementary response to the stage 1. Regardless of the intent as it stated, “I have no option but to close down your complaint.”, it may have reasonably been understood by the resident that she had exhausted the complaints process. Although the stage 1 response did correctly advise her of the escalation process, this further apparently conflicting response from the same author would have at the very least caused some confusion.
32. Following this email the resident contacted her local MP, who then contacted the landlord on her behalf on 4 November 2022. Although this Service has not been provided copies of all correspondence between the MP and the landlord, this correspondence resulted in an inspection of the resident’s loft for pest activity in February 2023. The resident’s reasons for contacting her MP are unknown, however the dates indicate it took place after the landlord’s email of 9 September 2022, which advised her all avenues had been closed.
33. Despite the resident engaging the assistance of her MP, the landlord did not escalate her complaint to stage 2. This was in compliance with the landlord’s complaint procedures which state, “If the complainant is dissatisfied with our decision and asks us to, we will escalate to Stage Two.” Although it did not receive any formal request to do so, the resident in this case was clearly dissatisfied as evidenced by her ongoing contact with the landlord regarding the issue. It would have been reasonable for the landlord in this case to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
34. On 16 November 2022 the resident was again emailed regarding her complaint. This email advised that as the investigation had been unable to locate the source of the sound, the complaint would be closed. It also offered the resident £50 compensation for complaint handling, although the specific failing was not explained. This was an inappropriate response by the landlord as it had already previously stated the complaint had been closed, but never confirmed it had been reopened. The landlord’s intent in sending the email is unclear, and the inclusion of compensation may indicate it was intended as a formal complaint response despite not being presented as such. It would have been reasonable for the resident to have understood from this email that she had exhausted the complaints process, particularly as the landlord had offered her compensation.
35. The resident contacted this Service on 7 December 2022, it is clear from the resident’s contact that she understood the landlord’s response to indicate she had exhausted its complaints process. In May 2023 this Service contacted the landlord and in response a stage 2 response was issued. Therefore, the landlord’s email of 16 November 2022 resulted in the resident expending time and effort in contacting this Service. It also led to a delay in obtaining a suitable final response to her complaint, which would enable it to be referred to this Service for investigation.
36. The emails of 9 September 2021 and 16 November 2022 both stated the resident’s complaint had been closed, although the landlord had not complied with either its own complaints policy or the Code in doing so. This resulted in the resident expending considerable time and effort in getting her complaint correctly addressed. As a result of these failures and the landlord’s failure to recognise them or put them right, a finding of service failure is appropriate.
37. In accordance with this Service’s Remedies guidance, with consideration due to the impact of the resident both in time and trouble in obtaining a complete final response. As well as the inconvenience and distress caused by the landlord closing her case prematurely on two separate occasions. As the landlord did not acknowledge its failings this Service believes the amount of £50 would be appropriate redress.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a reported noise nuisance.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

40. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £100 compensation within 28 days of the date of this report, consisting of £50 already awarded by the landlord at stage 2, as well as an additional:
    1. £50 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

41. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord, contact the resident’s neighbours to ascertain whether they have heard and can point to the reported noise. If confirmed, the landlord should consider conducting an investigation into the neighbouring properties, for potential sources of the reported noise.