The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (201908242)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201908242

Hyde Housing Association Limited

23 12 2020


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:

  • the level of compensation offered by the landlord for its response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance in his property
  • the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a two-bedroomed property on the third floor of his building.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms its responsibility to “keep in good repair and proper working order any installations provided by the [landlord] for the space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity”.
  3. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy statement provides for a two-stage complaints process. This states that it aims to provide a response at stage one of the process within 20 working days but will “reserve the right to take a reasonable amount of additional time to investigate a complaint at each stage where the issues are complex”.
  4. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy statement confirms that it “will consider any request for a complaint to be escalated to Stage 2” and that “Once the complaint has been resolved and all follow-on actions have been completed, the complaint will be closed.”
  5. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy statement provides for payments of discretionary compensation in recognition of “distress and inconvenience experienced” and “time and trouble taken” by the resident.
  6. The landlord’s repairs responsibilities webpage confirms that it is “responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure and exterior of the building; and communal areas”.
  7. The landlord’s “report a repair” webpage states that emergency repairs are those which “threaten health, safety or security or could cause significant damage to your home”. These are to be attended within four hours and made safe within 24 hours. Non-urgent repairs are be attended within 20 working days. No timeframe is provided for follow-on works after this initial attendance.

Summary of events

  1. There is evidence of the resident reporting a humming noise from behind his wall to the landlord on 15 April 2013, 28 April 2015, 28 June 2016 and 7 July 2016.
  2. The resident obtained a report from a sound engineer on 23 November 2016 which observed a “persistent buzzing noise” from inside the property. The report states that this was “clearly a mechanical noise”.
  3. On 13 April 2018 the resident called the landlord to provide an account of events from a visit on 20 October 2017, when it visited the property for the purpose of assessing the requirement for restoration work to the building. Whilst there, he brought to its attention “the noise coming through the walls” in a bedroom in the property. The landlord observed some ducting in the space behind the wall and agreed that work was needed to remedy the noise.
  4. The resident added that the landlord returned on 13 November 2017 and explained the proposed work to address the issue. He also stated that “since 2011 various people came and listened to the noise but no work [had] taken place”. The resident advised that health and safety and asbestos checks had already been carried out and he was still awaiting a start date for the remedial work.
  5. The landlord logged the resident’s request for an “official written reply to his concerns” as a complaint and it wrote to him on 20 April 2018 to acknowledge the complaint at stage one of its process. This letter stated that it aimed to provide him with a written response by 2 May 2018
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 May 2018 to advise that it needed to “extend [his] complaint closure date until such time as it can be resolved”. It apologised for any frustration caused and explained that this was because proposed repairs were not yet complete.
  7. The landlord’s internal communication showed that, following the discovery of an electrical board in the wall, an electrician’s report from 10 May 2018 stated more investigation was required. On 16 May 2018 it identified the source of the noise as being from “Heat Recovery Units dating back from 2010”. On 21 May 2018 the landlord obtained a quote for the work and it contacted the resident on 24 May 2018 to make an appointment for 4 June 2019 to carry out the work.
  8. On 7 June 2018 the resident cancelled the appointment for the landlord’s visit the following day due to family commitments, advising he would rearrange this on his return.
  9. The work was completed, and the landlord met with the resident on 19 June 2018 when it was identified that the noise had not been eliminated entirely and it agreed to install acoustic boarding as a goodwill gesture.
  10. On 19 July 2018 the landlord advised the resident that it was still yet to have a date available for the installation of the acoustic boarding but would update him in four days. 
  11. The landlord wrote the resident on 24 July 2018 to confirm that the work to install acoustic boarding in his property was to commence on 6 August 2018.
  12. The landlord’s internal emails on 24 July 2018 note that the resident wished to claim for the loss of use of a bedroom due to the noise. An internal email from the landlord’s surveyor, who was present on 17 October 2017 when the resident reported the noise issue, showed that they were unable to confirm if the noise reported would have prevented someone from sleeping in the bedroom.
  13. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 10 August 2018 in which it confirmed that the noise he reported emanated from a communal ventilation unit located in the communal loft above the property. It acknowledged that there was a delay in starting the remedial work due to “the original contractor not being able to meet the required obligations”. It confirmed that the installation of acoustic sound boarding took place on 8 August 2018, with follow-up plastering to occur on 10 August 2018.
  14. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the “excessive delays in resolving [the resident’s] noise issues” and awarded £250 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
  15. On 5 February 2019 the resident spoke to the landlord, where it informed him that, although he remained dissatisfied, it had taken “all possible steps” to resolve the matter and the next steps for him were to either approach this Service or his MP.
  16. On 12 September 2019, after intervention from the resident’s MP, the landlord responded to him to confirm that he had been informed on 5 February 2019 that it had exhausted all possible steps internally to resolve his complaint at stage one of the complaint process. It noted that it had sent him a letter in January 2019 (not made available to this Service) confirming this but it had omitted to advise him that he could contact the Ombudsman. The landlord apologised for this oversight and confirmed that its internal complaint process had been exhausted.
  17. On 2 October 2020, the resident confirmed to this Service that his outstanding issue was with the level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of the noise issue.

Assessment and findings

The level of compensation offered by the landlord for its response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance in his property

  1. It is noted that the resident has informed this Service that the issue with the humming noise started in 2011, however there was a significant interval between his prior report of the humming noise on 28 June 2016 to the landlord and his raising a formal complaint with it on 18 April 2018. Therefore, this assessment will focus on events from October 2017 onward, this being six months prior to his raising a formal complaint.
  2. As the source of the noise reported by the resident on 17 October 2017 was from a communal ventilation installation located in a communal space, as per the landlord repairs responsibilities webpage above at point 6, it was appropriate for it to address the issue and arrange for remedial works.
  3. The landlord attended 13 November 2017, 19 working days after the resident notified it about the issue on 20 October 2017. This was within the timescale of 20 days quoted on the landlord’s “report a repair” webpage, above at point 7, and was therefore it responded within a reasonable timeframe.
  4. However, although it is not disputed that health and safety and asbestos checks were carried out between 13 November 2017 and the resident’s contact on 13 April 2018, there is no evidence of any further works carried out to address the issue in these intervening five months.
  5. While there is no timeframe provided for follow on works on the landlord’s “report a repair” webpage, above at point 7, this is an unreasonable length of time, considering that there is no evidence of any updates being provided to the resident. This is likely to have caused him distress and inconvenience.
  6. After the resident’s complaint on 13 April 2018 there is evidence that the landlord made reasonable attempts to keep him updated on the progress of the work on 2 and 24 May 2018. It discussed the effectiveness of the work with him on 19 June 2018 and agreed further sound proofing works with him. This was a reasonable response from the landlord considering that sound proofing works are typically in excess of a landlord’s repairing obligation.
  7. There followed an interval of approximately seven weeks before the acoustic sound boarding was installed on 8 August 2018. This was approximately ten months since the resident reported the noise issue to the landlord on 17 October 2017 and was an excessive delay. Therefore, the landlord failed to complete the works in a reasonable timeframe.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the “excessive delay” in its stage one complaint response on 10 August 2018 and awarded £250 compensation to the resident. Its complaints and compensation policy, above at point 5, does not specify recommended amounts for compensation, however the award of £250 is broadly in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs”. Therefore, the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress which was proportionate to the failings it acknowledged in the handling of the resident’s report of noise.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord did not escalate the complaint in response to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction, this is confirmed by its letter of 12 September 2019. While its complaint and compensation policy, above at point 4, confirms that it may close a complaint once “all follow-on actions have been completed” it is unclear from the evidence provided that this is the case as it is unclear that it addressed his concerns over the loss of bedroom, which it recorded on 24 July 2018. 
  2. This Service has not had sight of the landlord’s letter to the resident in January 2019 and it did not address his claim above for the loss of use of a bedroom in its stage one complaint response on 10 August 2018. As remedial works had already taken place by 24 July 2018 which may have prevented a full investigation into this claim, it would have been reasonable for it to advise him of this but there is no evidence of this.
  3. Therefore, the landlord demonstrated a failure to fully address the issues raised by the resident in the course of his complaint which it has not acknowledged and compensation of £75 should be paid to the resident to recognise this. This in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where failings have occurred but which “may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning the level of compensation offered by it for its response to his reports of noise disturbance in his property satisfactorily.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord offered a reasonable award of compensation which was proportionate to its acknowledged failings in carrying out remedial works to address the noise reported by the resident.

In its stage one complaint response, the landlord did not address the residents claim for the loss of a bedroom due to the noise and there is no evidence it addressed this in subsequent communication.

Orders

The landlord to:

  1. Pay the £250 compensation that it previously offered the resident in its stage one complaint response, if not already paid.

 

  1. Pay the resident £75 for its failure to address his claim for the loss of a bedroom in its handling of the complaint.

 

The landlord shall contact this Service within 28 days to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.

The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.