Abri Group Limited (202015303)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015303

Abri Group Limited

3 February 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of noise nuisance and her request for compensation.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord and lived in a first floor flat in sheltered accommodation. Both the resident and her son corresponded with this Service and the landlord regarding the complaint, however, for clarity this report will refer to them both as “the resident”.
3. The resident reported noise from the flat above in 2020. The landlord subsequently sent letters to the resident’s neighbour advising her of the reports, offered mediation, installed noise monitoring equipment and offered the resident an internal property move.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the matter on 22 February 2021, stating that the noise issues from the flat above were ongoing and the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue had been unsuccessful. She requested to be moved until a satisfactory solution, such as installing soundproofing or carpet underlay, had been implemented. She did not think she should have to move out of the property at her own expense due to the issues with noise nuisance.
5. The resident relinquished her tenancy in early January 2022, citing ongoing noise from the neighbour.
6. In the landlord’s final response on 22 July 2022, it determined that it had assessed all possible actions to resolve the issues with noise nuisance and support the resident, such as offering property moves, which the resident had declined, and it had made a referral to mediation. It stated it had been unable to gain evidence that the noise was excessive, and it had considered soundproofing, but had not deemed it to be appropriate. It acknowledged complaint handling failures as it had not provided significant detail of the actions it had taken in its 2021 stage one response, and it had failed to escalate the complaint when the resident remained dissatisfied following this. It offered £150 compensation due to its complaint handling failures and outlined the measures it had taken to improve its service.
7. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said that the landlord had confirmed the noise was excessive when it installed sound monitoring equipment, but it had not taken any action to resolve it. She said she had moved due to the stress caused by the issue, and she wanted compensation for the cost of moving.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident raised an additional complaint to the landlord regarding her request for compensation for white goods, due to moving from the property following the noise nuisance reports. The resident initially referred the issue to this Service as part of her complaint; however, she has subsequently confirmed that she only considers the issues defined above to be outstanding and that the other issues of the complaint have been resolved. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the issues that remain outstanding.

The resident’s reports of noise nuisance and her request for compensation

9. The landlord’s ASB (anti-social behaviour) policy states that it considers noise such as loud music, shouting and banging doors under its ASB policy. As such, when the landlord received reports of noise nuisance from the resident, it was obliged to investigate her concerns, ascertain whether there was noise nuisance, and take any appropriate steps to resolve the issue. The landlord’s ASB policy outlined steps such as warning letters, mediation, noise monitoring equipment and legal action to investigate and resolve ASB issues.
10. In its final response to the complaint, the landlord outlined the actions it had taken. It is important to note that the landlord has not provided a full account of the resident’s ASB reports and evidence of its actions in the records that it has provided. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail in ASB cases. When the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, this Service will ask for the landlord’s records. If matters are disputed and there is no evidence/audit trail, the Ombudsman may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. However, in this case, there is no evidence to suggest the resident has disputed the timeline of events provided in the landlord’s final complaint response, so the lack of contemporaneous records has not impacted the outcome of this investigation.
11. In the landlord’s final response, it stated that the resident initially reported noise from the flat above on 5 August 2020. However, the resident has said that they began reporting the issue in March 2020, and it can be seen in the records provided that the landlord sent written warnings to the resident’s neighbour in March 2020.
12. The landlord promptly took actions in line with its ASB policy to resolve the issue. As well as the March 2020 letter, it wrote to the neighbour on 28 August 2020, offered mediation on 3 September 2020, and offered an internal move on 24 September 2020, which the resident declined. The resident confirmed the actions taken by the landlord had improved the issues for a short duration of time between 23 October 2020 and 11 November 2020. When the resident reported a recurrence of the noise issues, the landlord acted appropriately by offering noise monitoring equipment and reiterating its offer regarding an internal transfer
13. Noise monitoring equipment was installed in the resident’s property from 1 December 2020 until 11 December 2020, which was appropriate to ascertain the nature of the noise reported and assess whether further actions were required. The landlord noted that the recordings included banging, tapping and some music. Following removal of the noise monitoring equipment, the landlord would be expected to assess the noise, determine the appropriate actions to take and advise the resident of its intended response. In its stage two response the landlord stated that it understood it continued to support the resident when the equipment was removed. However, there is limited evidence of further actions or correspondence to resolve the issue, until the stage one response on 3 March 2021. There is a record from shortly after the equipment was removed noting that the resident was informed that the landlord had listened to the recordings and that noise could be heard, but it does not appear that she was told whether the noise amounted to ASB, or what the action the landlord would or would not take next. This lack of clarity may have unrealistically raised the resident’s expectations as to what the landlord could do to address the issue.
14. Overall, there was over a two-month period where the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the situation. There is no evidence to suggest that this had an impact on the outcome of the matter, but it would have been frustrating for the resident.
15. In its stage one response, the landlord advised it was unable to ascertain where the noise originated from, due to the nature of the property being within a block of flats. The landlord also noted in its findings from the noise recordings that it was unable to determine whether the noise was deliberate, as it was possibly general living noise and was largely confined to sociable hours. This position is supported by the records available, which note the landlord’s assessment of the recordings and conclusion that, ‘The majority of recordings are in that period where you would expect some daily living noise in a communal living situation.’
16. As a result, there was limited evidence that the noise would be considered as ASB, or that there was a statutory noise nuisance. It is also recognised that the neighbour had vulnerabilities, which affected the level of noise from the property. The landlord would therefore have to ensure any actions taken were appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances. The landlord had considered more formal measures to resolve the noise issues, including an acceptable behaviour contract, but it determined it was not appropriate in this case. From the information available to this Service, this decision was reasonable in the circumstances.
17. This Service’s spotlight report on noise complaints (“Time to be Heard”, published in October 2022) outlined that “although a lack of statutory noise levels does limit landlords’ options, particularly tenancy enforcement action, it does not absolve them of the requirement to explore other suitable resolutions”. A landlord should take steps to assess whether insulation and soundproofing between properties is sufficient to limit noise transference.
18. In this case, the landlord advised that it had assessed whether additional soundproofing was required and determined that it would not install additional soundproofing due to financial implications. The landlord is required to maintain the property, but it is not required to make improvements, so as it determined the current soundproofing was sufficient, it would not be obliged to implement additional measures. Furthermore, social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents, so it was not unreasonable that the landlord declined the resident’s request for soundproofing.
19. However, it is unclear what steps the landlord took to confirm there was sufficient soundproofing in the property, as there is no evidence of a survey. The landlord noted that a staff member had determined soundproofing would not be classed as a repair, but it is unclear whether this was determined by an appropriately qualified contractor. It may be that the landlord already had sufficient records to confirm that the property complied with the building regulations at the time it was built. Although it is acknowledged that the Ombudsman’s spotlight report was published after this case occurred, the landlord should ensure that it has clear evidence that soundproofing is sufficient and meets regulations before concluding that it is not required.
20. As the noise reports were ongoing, and the resident had reported that the issues were impacting her health, it was appropriate that the landlord discussed a management move with her on 15 March 2021, which was subsequently approved on 21 April 2021. The landlord promptly offered the resident a property on 28 April 2021, however, she declined the offer and advised the noise issues had recently reduced. The landlord noted that it did not receive any additional noise reports after this date, and the resident submitted an end of tenancy form on 5 January 2022 and moved out of the property in February 2022. It is unclear whether the noise issues were ongoing following the last contact with the resident regarding the issue, but there is no record of further reports after that time.
21. The resident requested compensation due to the costs she incurred by moving properties due to the issues she experienced with noise from the flat above. This Service would not generally expect the landlord to offer compensation for the cost of moving, unless there was a significant service failure which led the resident to move. As the landlord demonstrated that it had taken appropriate steps to investigate and address the resident’s reports of noise from the flat above, including offering a move itself, and as there is no evidence that the resident made any reports of ASB for several months before moving, the landlord would not be expected to reimburse the costs she incurred. There is also no evidence to suggest that the resident discussed the costs prior to moving out of the property, so the landlord was not given the opportunity to manage her expectations regarding compensation prior to the move.
22. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident found the situation distressing, and clearly felt unable to stay on at the property, a decision she will not have taken lightly. However, while recognising the impact the matter had on the resident, overall, the information available shows that the landlord took appropriate steps in attempting to resolve the reported noise nuisance from the flat above within a reasonable timeframe.
23. However, due to the landlord’s lack of contemporaneous evidence, and the limited detail in its stage two response, this Service is unable to determine whether the landlord took sufficient steps to fully advise the resident of the outcome of the noise monitoring, or manage the resident’s expectations regarding what action could/could not be taken on that basis. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.
24. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £50-£100 are appropriate in cases where there was a minor failing by the landlord which it did not appropriately acknowledge or put right. The landlord’s failure to manage the resident’s expectations following the noise monitoring equipment installation was likely to have caused additional distress and frustration (although it did not have an impact on the outcome of the case). The landlord is therefore ordered to award the resident £100 to redress this element of the complaint.

Complaint handling

25. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The resident initially raised a complaint on 22 February 2021 and the landlord issued its stage one response on 3 March 2021.
26. The resident advised the landlord on 9 March 2021 that she was dissatisfied with its response, but the landlord failed to provide details of how to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints process. Furthermore, in its stage one response, the landlord signposted the resident directly to this Service, rather than explaining how she could escalate her complaint with the landlord. As the landlord failed to either provide details of how the resident could escalate her complaint or provide appropriate reasons for its decision to not escalate it, the complaint remained unresolved for a prolonged period of time. This caused the resident additional time and effort in pursuing the complaint.
27. Following correspondence with this Service, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 9 June 2022. The landlord issued its stage two response on 22 July 2022. Although this was slightly outside of its response timeframe, it had advised the resident of the delay, so it took steps to ensure her expectations were managed.
28. In the landlord’s final response, it recognised its failing to escalate the resident’s complaint and explained that it had taken measures to prevent a recurrence of the issue, including “enhanced controls, a redesigned training curriculum and quality assurance checks, as well as new complaint officer performance management”. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it had taken points of learning from the complaint in order to improve its service.
29. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord offered the resident £150 due to its complaint handling failures. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100 and above are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failure has adversely impacted the resident. The landlord has therefore demonstrated that it had put things right as it offered compensation in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, and it took steps of learning to improve its service.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and her request for compensation.
31. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

32. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 due to its failure to manage expectations regarding the actions it could take following the noise monitoring equipment installation.

Recommendations

33. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident £150 for its complaint handling failures as outlined in its stage two response.
34. The landlord should review its record handling practices to ensure that it has clear, accurate records of ASB reports.