Great Places Housing Group Limited (201913746)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913746

Great Places Housing Group Limited

29 March 2021

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 handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of noise nuisance;
2. associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

On 19 November 2019, the resident complained about noise from the water meter cupboard in the communal hallway, which she could hear in her bedroom throughout the night. She said that, on 16 September 2019, the Repairs Field Manager (RFM) had attended to check the repetitive noise coming from the water meter cupboard or surrounding area, as the resident could hear the noise in her bedroom and had been disturbed for three months. The RFM had had more than two months to deal with the problem and the resident already had mental health issues made worse by a lack of sleep due to the noise, which was occurring every night. She wanted the noise to stop and said her GP may contact the landlord as her health should not deteriorate.
The complaint form was acknowledged the next day and the resident was told that the RFM would contact her as soon as possible. On 21 November 2019, the resident asked the landlord for an email response from the RFM as she wanted everything in writing. In the absence of a response, she completed a further customer feedback form on 28 November 2019. On 2 December 2019, the landlord emailed to confirm that the resident was referring to the complaint submitted on 19 November 2019. The complaint was acknowledged again on 4 December 2019 and the landlord quoted the issues as ‘dissatisfaction with communication provided by resident’s RFM and the length of time taken to resolve a repair’. It said that a response would be provided within 15 days.
The resident emailed the landlord the same day, unhappy that she had received a telephone call from the RFM that day, after asking for a written response to her complaint escalation request. She said that members of staff were making excuses, contradicting themselves, and hanging up the phone. She reiterated her request for the complaint to be escalated.
On 20 December 2019, an email was sent from the resident’s social worker to the landlord which said that, on her last visit, the resident advised that noise from the corridor was keeping her awake. The social worker understood that someone from the landlord had also heard this. The resident suffered with extreme anxiety and depression and heard the noise most nights.
The resident chased the complaint on 6 and 7 January 2020, saying that the RFM was rude and failed to respond to emails from the Neighbourhood Services Manager, and that she would keep complaining until the noise stopped. She also said she was going to see her GP and felt if the noise carried on it would affect her mental health. She chased again on 21 January 2020 and her social worker emailed the same day to confirm that she had also heard the noise quite clearly from the resident’s front door. She reiterated that the resident suffered with extreme anxiety and depression and the situation was not helping her mental state so she asked if there was any way to rectify the matter.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 28 January 2020, asking it to contact the resident regarding the complaint, and the resident emailed the landlord again the following day chasing a response.
In the landlord’s complaint response of 4 February 2020, it apologised for the delay. It said that the noise issue was first raised with it on 27 July 2019 and, although the RFM and plumber could hear the sound from the cupboard, this was to be expected from a water system serving multiple apartments with water being drawn from the system. Although the resident advised she could hear it from her apartment, this had not been observed by the plumber or the RFM, who advised that there was nothing that could be done, and the noise was not considered loud or to be causing a detrimental impact to the resident’s day to day living.
It was the landlord’s understanding that the primary concern was the water pressure, which had been resolved. The next appointment by the Area Services Manager (ASM) and RFM was on 16 September 2019, when they again found that they could hear noise by the meter cupboard but not inside the resident’s apartment and this was normal noise and expected in this type of accommodation. It advised that the resident should monitor the issue, and it would consider this evidence in conjunction with reports from other tenants in the vicinity (although no other tenants had complained to date). It then advised that the RFM had made the telephone call to the resident on 4 December 2019 to reiterate the landlord’s position.
The landlord stated that, on 31 January 2020, the Head of Repairs and RFM had visited the property and inspected the communal areas of all three floors of the block and the resident’s entrance vestibule and did not observe any noise that was unreasonable or excessive. Based on its own investigations it was unable to provide any further repair or render the water system completely silent. It suggested that the resident contact the Environmental Health Department (EHD) if she felt the noise was excessive, as they had noise monitoring capability. In respect of the delay in the response, a £50 goodwill gesture was offered to cover the resident’s repeated emails.
In the resident’s reply of 5 February 2020, she clarified that the noise did not start until August 2019, as there had been a water pressure issue affecting showers in her and at least one other flat, which was fixed in July 2019. She confirmed the complaint did not relate to June/July 2019 as the problem did not exist then and was not about water pressure. She had mentioned the noise to the ASM who visited and heard it and then called the RFM in the presence of the resident and arranged for him to visit on 16 September 2019. She said the noise was not normal, it had not occurred for ten years before August 2019, and a brief visit did not compare to listening to the noise every night.
The landlord responded the same day, advising that its investigation had been concluded and it was satisfied that its actions and subsequent discussions had been reasonable. However, if the resident had evidence and logs/recordings of the noise it could reopen the complaint at stage two, and the previous offer of £50 in respect to the written response times was still available. In the resident’s response, she stated that the noise was only excessive because of its frequency, which was approximately 90% of the time.
The landlord replied that the noise was not observed to be of an unreasonable level to render the property uninhabitable. As a result, the matter was considered closed, and it would be taking no further action unless there was significant evidence that the noise was at a regularly high level. Contact details for the EHD were given.
Following the Ombudsman’s intervention between March and August 2020, the landlord confirmed that its complaints process had been exhausted and that its final response had been issued on 5 February 2020.
The landlord’s notes indicate that a ‘pump repair’ was booked on 28 October 2020.
Following further interventions by the Ombudsman in November 2020, the landlord confirmed that, after its emails of 4 and 5 February 2020, advising the resident to provide additional information before it would escalate, it did not feel it was appropriate to send a further response. It was also aware that an additional repair had taken place since August 2020 to what may have been the cause of the original complaint. This was contradicted by an email from the resident to the landlord on 8 December 2020 which said that further to her last email when she said the noise had got a bit quieter, this did not last, and she could hear it clearly in bed at 5am. The landlord responded on 11 December 2020 to say it would follow this up and get back to the resident.
In the absence of a response, the resident chased the landlord on 2 February 2021. In the landlord’s reply of 25 February 2021, it included notes from a repair dated 30 September 2020 and said that an update would be given to the repairs supervisor that the noise was still ongoing, and it would revert to the resident.
On 28 February 2021, the resident advised the Ombudsman that operatives had attended the property on 4 and 30 September 2020 and, during the latter visit, she was told that the water pump was causing the noise, it had not been repaired properly, and the operative could hear it on every floor. As a result, a repair was booked for 28 October 2020, but the issue was still not fixed.

Assessment and findings

Noise nuisance

In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is obliged to ‘not interrupt or interfere with the tenant’s right to peacefully occupy the premises’, which conveys a responsibility to resolve potential causes of nuisance. As a result, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified.
The evidence demonstrates that the landlord accepted its responsibilities in this regard, by arranging for the RFM to visit the property in September 2019. No plumber was present at that visit, and the RFM and ASM reported being able to hear the noise from the water meter cupboard but not from inside the resident’s property. At that time, the resident was advised that the landlord could only monitor the issue over time and consider it in conjunction with reports from any other residents, but no other tenants had reported the noise.
The landlord has not provided evidence to indicate that it contacted any other residents to ask about the noise, so it is not clear if it was heard elsewhere. That being said, the fact that no other tenants had reported the noise did not mean that it was not present in the resident’s property, particularly as the resident’s social worker also reported hearing the noise from the front door of the property in her email of 21 January 2020.
Between the September 2019 inspection and the complaint response in February 2020, the resident chased the landlord numerous times but was given no updates as to the progress of the investigation. Evidence from the landlord shows that an inspection of communal areas only was undertaken on 31 January 2020 so would not have revealed what noise could be heard inside the property. As a result, the conclusions from this inspection offered little in the way of evidence to support or undermine the resident’s specific complaint that the noise within her own home was causing a nuisance.
Prior to that visit and before the complaint response of February 2020, the RFM telephoned the resident on 4 December 2019 to reiterate the landlord’s position. However, this was contrary to the resident’s request for any contact to be in writing, and it appears to have been premature given that the investigation was not yet complete. Whilst the Ombudsman would encourage the provision of regular updates, these should accord with the resident’s contact preferences and should accurately explain if the matter is still ongoing and pending investigation.
It is concerning to note that, beyond the telephone call in December 2019, the landlord does not appear to have kept the resident updated on the progress of the case, particularly in light of the evident delays in its response. Further, when another inspection was ultimately carried out in January 2021, this did not seek to replicate the conditions of the complaint, i.e. that the noise could be heard from inside the resident’s property.
It is understood that the resident did not contact the EHD as was suggested by the landlord, and she has not advised this Service what her reasons for this were. It may be that this would have assisted with providing evidence of the issue and so the resident could have done more to progress the matter herself in that regard. Further, there is no evidence of the resident submitting logs or recordings as suggested by the landlord, which may have indicated that she was not fully engaged in its investigation process.
However, with that in mind, it should be noted that the resident advised that the noise was apparent 90% of the time, so it is likely that a log of the noise would have added very little to the investigation. Further, whilst recordings of the noise may have helped the landlord to understand the nature of the sound the resident was experiencing, these are unlikely to have captured a significant volume of noise (given the nature of the reports). Rather, the noise appears to have been more of a constant irritant to the resident which she felt may be indicative of a fault with the water system. Therefore, whilst the landlord may not ultimately have found the noise to be unreasonable or concerning, this Service considers that it did not undertake sufficient investigations to properly reach that conclusion.
It is then notable that, following completion of the complaints process in February 2020, the landlord undertook works to the water system in August and September 2020. It is not clear from the evidence provided what prompted these repairs, but the resident had initially reported that the issue was resolved, only for it to return as advised in her email of 8 December 2020. This temporary repair would indicate that the previous investigations did not provide the outcome which was, temporarily at least, provided.
The repair to the water supply system which later failed suggests that the landlord may not have fully complied with its obligation under the tenancy agreement to ‘keep in repair and working order the installations for…sanitation and for the supply of water …’ at the time of the complaint. Certainly, given the nature of the complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out more thorough investigations into the condition of the pipework at the time. Had action been taken by the landlord to reduce the level of noise at an earlier stage, it may have alleviated some of the distress reported by the resident.
The evidence suggests that the investigation into the resident’s concerns was not adequate, given that the landlord’s staff did not go inside the property to listen for the noise after the formal complaint was made, and that a temporary repair was subsequently carried out which improved the situation for a time. To demonstrate that this matter has been fairly investigated, it would now be appropriate for the landlord to arrange a further inspection of the property by staff not previously involved in the complaint, including a technician who can investigate the previous repair and decide if anything can be done to reduce the noise from the water meter. This would provide the independent second stage investigation that the landlord’s Complaints Policy provides for.

Complaints handling

The landlord did not meet the timeframes and actions in its Complaints Policy, which says that it will look to resolve complaints in 15 working days. Where this is not resolved, the resident can request a review by an independent manager with a further response within 15 days. In this instance, the complaint was submitted on 19 November 2019 and not responded to until 4 February 2020. The resident asked for a final response on 6 February 2020, but no second stage response was issued.
The landlord has not complied with the following provisions within the Complaint Handling Code issued by this Service:
1. section 2.8 – landlords shall provide advice to residents regarding their right to access this Service;
2. section 3.11 – a stage one decision should be given in a maximum of 10 working days of receipt of a complaint;
3. section 3.6 – the landlord’s complaints procedure shall comprise of two stages.
The stage 1 response should have included details of how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied. The Complaint Handling Code self-assessment checklist on the landlord’s website confirms that it advises residents how to escalate complaints at the end of each stage, and that the final stage response sets out residents’ rights to refer the matter to the Ombudsman. Although the landlord has confirmed that it is currently adhering to these requirements, this did not appear to happen on this occasion.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy specifies a guide sum of £50 for ‘service provided badly’ which would match the sum offered and the issue of the delay in the complaint being answered from submission to response. However, no further compensation was offered in respect of the further delay and absence of a correctly constructed final response.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint was unclear and resulted in the resident chasing it up and asking repeatedly for her complaint to be escalated to stage two (when stage one had not yet taken place). Further, had the resident not been aware of this Service by other means, she may have been prevented from escalating the matter in the correct way. Overall, the £50 compensation offered by the landlord was inadequate for a complaint reported in November 2019 which still does not have a stage two investigation response.
The overall sum of £200 would better reflect the distress caused by the delay in this matter being resolved (both in relation to the substantive issue and the complaints handling) and is in accordance with the recommended remedies published by this Service where there was a ‘failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact’.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of noise nuisance;
2. associated formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has not demonstrated that it took appropriate steps to adequately investigate the resident’s reports of noise nuisance or to satisfy itself that it had met its repairing obligations under the tenancy agreement. Given that subsequent repairs did alleviate the situation for a time, it is reasonable to conclude that earlier action by the landlord could have prevented distress to the resident, as supported by her social worker.
The landlord’s complaints procedure was not followed, there was no clear process, timescales were not met, and the resident was prevented from obtaining a management review of the complaint. The landlord has confirmed on its website that it adheres to the Complaint Handling Code but has failed to do so in relation to this complaint. This failure has delayed the matter being considered by this Service.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. pay the resident £200 compensation (£100 in respect of its failure to adequately investigate the noise reports and £100 for its handling of the formal complaint). Any sum already paid to the resident in respect of this complaint may be deducted from this amount.
2. carry out a further inspection of the property, with different senior members of staff and a plumber, and provide a written report to the resident regarding its findings, any identified repairs, and any next steps.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should remind all staff involved in the handling of complaints to include escalation rights where appropriate and the importance of a clear final response to ensure residents are not denied access to this Service and to adhere to the Housing Ombudsman Code.