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

Karbon Homes Limited (201906063)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906063

Karbon Homes 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of noise transference
    2. handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident was a tenant of the landlord at the time of the events leading to the complaint.
  2. The resident commenced her tenancy with the landlord on 20 March 2019.
  3. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy confirms that reports of noise associated with everyday living will not be addressed through its ASB procedure.
  4. The landlord’s complaints, compliments and suggestions policy provides for a an initial informal complaint stage followed by two-stage formal complaint procedure. An acknowledgement letter is to be sent to the resident within one working day of the complaint. This policy specifies that, at both stages of its procedure, written responses are to be provided to the resident within ten working days.
  5. The landlord’s compensation and goodwill payments policy confirms that it will pay £25 for an “unreasonable” amount of time spent by a resident pursuing a complaint that was upheld. This also specifies that it will consider a goodwill payment when it has failed to meet its service standards.

Summary of events

  1. The resident reported to the landlord on 8 April 2019 that she was being woken up by the sound of her neighbour’s internal doors being closed in the morning and that she could hear them preparing food in their kitchen. She provided an audio clip of what she believed was the sound of them “chopping vegetables”. The resident described the noise as “unbearable” and later that day emailed the landlord again to report a “banging sound” from above her. She asked if a sound test had been carried out in the property to “keep them up to date with building regulations”. The resident provided another sound recording to the landlord the following day.
  2. The landlord emailed the resident on 10 April 2019 to advise that it had carried out a visit to the building that day and checked the door closers, which produced “very little noise”. It advised that it had carried out an acoustic sound test on 25 April 2018 which “passed all air borne and impact tests” and it had additionally installed sound insulating vinyl floors to further reduce noise transference. The landlord felt that there was no more it could do regarding this.
  3. The resident replied to the landlord that day to dispute that there was nothing else to be done as she contended that the tests had not been carried out in her property. She said that it did not take the matter seriously enough and that she would liaise with the environmental health service and arrange sound tests herself. Later that day, the landlord replied to offer a visit to the property to carry out a test; the resident replied to this to suggest a more extensive test which provided a “numerical value” was needed.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord twice the following day to request an update. She said that if it did not visit within two working days she would approach sound professionals and the environmental health service.
  5. On 23 April 2019 the resident discussed an offer from the landlord to relocate to the property above hers. She reasoned that it was likely to be quieter but was concerned about the upheaval. The resident expressed scepticism of the landlord’s assertion that sound tests of the property had found it to be “above board” and that the results of the tests were “data protected”. She said that she only had its word of this and “no actual evidence”.
  6. In response to a letter from the resident on 2 July 2019 about several issues, including the noise transference, the landlord wrote to her on 19 July 2019. It acknowledged her dissatisfaction with the level of noise transference in the property but advised that it had relied on noise transference tests which had satisfied the local authority’s building control department. The landlord enclosed a copy of the certificate showing this.
  7. The landlord arranged for noise transference tests to be carried out at the property on 16 September 2019. The resident emailed it later that day to express disappointment that only airborne noise tests were carried out and not impact tests. She stated that the tests carried out did not address her concerns and she would be bringing the matter to her MP.
  8. The sound testing report dated 18 September 2019 found that the “measured performance achieves that required by the Building Regulations”.
  9. On 23 September 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to question the results of the tests and to request that impact testing also be carried out.
  10. On 4 October 2019, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to ask it to address the resident’s dissatisfaction through its formal complaints process.
  11. The resident conveyed her impatience with the landlord’s response to her concerns over the noise transference on 21 October 2019, noting that the sound testing engineer had attended but had been refused access by her neighbours. She highlighted that she had now sought the intervention of her MP in the matter.
  12. The sound test was conducted on 31 October 2019. The report confirmed that the airborne and impact sound transference test results indicated that the “measured performance achieve[d] that required by the Building Regulations”.
  13. The resident asked the landlord on 5 and 8 November 2019 for the results of the test. It advised on 8 November 2019 that the level of noise transference passed the tests. At the resident’s request, later that day, the landlord agreed to provide her with a copy of the report which “might take a day or two”. She emailed it on 18 November 2019 to request the report again.
  14. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 November 2019 to confirm that it had carried out further noise transference tests in her property. It confirmed that the test results met the noise transmission standard set out by building regulations for flat conversions. Therefore, the landlord advised that there was “no further technical solution” it could offer to reduce the level of sound the resident experienced. It offered her a goodwill gesture of £100.
  15. After further contact from the resident on 2 and 11 December 2019, the landlord wrote to her on 11 December 2019 to provide the sound test report from 31 October 2019. It noted that some of the noise reported by her was attributed to doors slamming and advised that it had contacted the neighbours about this. The landlord offered to contact them again about this but acknowledged that the resident had previously advised this may have strained the relationships between her and her neighbours and suggested she could speak to them directly to “maintain a better relationship”. 
  16. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 January 2020 to request “missing” details from the sound test report. She emailed it again on30 January 2020 to request this. The reports were provided to her on 7 February 2020.
  17. After intervention from this Service on 10 February 2020 , and the resident’s MP on 24 February 2020, the landlord wrote to her on 4 March 2020. It expressed “regret” that she was dissatisfied during her tenancy with it and assured her that it had taken her complaint serious and had “invested both time and money fully investigating it”. The landlord relayed that it had commissioned third-party reports to assess the issues she had reported and assessed the sound insulation levels of the property. It confirmed that it had provided to her copies of all reports it had and could not identify anything missing.
  18. The landlord noted that she had taken up its offer of relocating her to a vacant property in the building to attempt to address the noise issue and it had inspected the door closers in the building. It relayed that it had not received any complaints of the issue from other residents in the building. The landlord confirmed that it had previously offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £100 for any inconvenience caused by delays in its responses and increased this to £150. It concluded that there was nothing else it could have done to resolve issues she raised.
  19. The landlord provided a final response to the resident on 6 May 2020. It noted that she reported issues with noise transference since the start of her tenancy which she did not attribute to antisocial behaviour. Although not standard practice for it, it offered her a move to an alternative property on a higher floor in April 2019 in a bid to resolve the matter. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord again about the noise issue in July 2019 and expressed concerns about the noise being due to the build of the property.
  20. In response to the resident’s misgivings about the historical sound test, the landlord carried out a further sound test on 16 September 2019, and a further test on 31 October 2019 when she questioned the testing methods. It reiterated that it had asked the residents of the building to be mindful of their use of the doors. The landlord confirmed that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint about noise transference but repeated its offer to her of a goodwill gesture of £150 in recognition of its delays in responding to her promptly. It confirmed that this was its final response.

Assessment and findings

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

  1. It should be firstly clarified that the role of the Ombudsman is not reach a conclusion on the disturbance itself. Our role is to determine whether the landlord responded to an issue reported by the resident in a reasonable manner and in line with any obligations it had under policy or statute.
  2. This Service will, therefore, not seek to determine if the resident experienced an excessive amount of noise transference but will determine whether the landlord took reasonable actions to address the issue. It should also be noted that a landlord only has an obligation to ensure that a building meets the building regulations that were relevant at the time the property was constructed. It is not required for older buildings to be brought into compliance with the specification required in current building regulations.
  3. Therefore, there was no obligation on the landlord to carry out the further sound testing that it did on 15 September and 31 October 2019 to assess if the property was “up to date” with building regulations, as queried by the resident on 8 April 2019. However, that it did shows good practice and that it was prepared to try and further investigate the concerns the resident had raised.
  4. In response to the resident’s concerns about noise transference it was reasonable for the landlord to handle this outside of its ASB policy, above at point 4, as the noise she reported was everyday living noise. It was a proportionate and reasonable response for the landlord to therefore ask the residents of the building to be considerate of others. There was no obligation for the landlord to rehouse the resident in a different property in April 2019; that it did so was in excess of its obligations.
  5. While the landlord took reasonable actions in response to the resident’s concerns about noise, there was a delay in providing the results of the sound test which she requested on 5 November 2019; these were not provided to her until 7 February 2020 after further involvement from her on 8 and 18 November, and 2 and 11 December 2019.
  6. The landlord acknowledged this delay, and offered a goodwill payment of £150. This was in line with its compensation and goodwill payments policy, above at point 6, and was also broadly in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”. Therefore, the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident for the failures identified.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s responses on 21 November 2019 and 4 March 2020 did not make it clear at which stage of the complaint procedure the complaint was considered at. These responses also did not provide further information on how the resident may escalate the complaint if she continued to be dissatisfied. Furthermore, when this Service intervened on 4 October 2020 to request that the resident’s concerns be addressed through the formal complaint procedure, there was no evidence of this being acknowledged. The final response issued on 6 May 2020 advised the resident that this was the landlord’s final response, but otherwise did not confirm that the complaint was considered at the final stage of its complaint procedure.
  2. The above aspects of the progression of the complaint are likely to make the landlord’s handling of the complaint non-compliant with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code specifies that landlords are to make it clear to a resident at which stage a complaint is being considered and provide clear information on how to progress the complaint. This would help manage the resident’s expectations regarding the expected resolution of the complaint and encourage faster resolution of the issues.
  3. Based on the above, there is no evidence that the landlord followed its complaints, compliments and suggestions policy. It remains unclear at which points the formal complaint was raised and subsequently escalated, and the lack of complaint acknowledgement from the landlord serves to further obfuscate this. There has been, therefore, a failure on the part of the landlord to manage the complaint in line with its policy.
  4. While it did not specifically acknowledge failings in its handling of the complaint, the landlord did recognise that its response has not been in line with its service standards, and in its final two responses increased its offer of a goodwill payment to £150 from £100. Considering all the circumstances of the matter, this increase was a reasonable and proportionate offer to address its failure in complaint handling and likely inconvenience caused to the resident, and continued to be broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning its response to her reports of noise transference satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning its handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

 

Reasons

  1. The landlord recognised that its responses had not been in line with its service standards and offered an amount of redress which reflected the likely detriment to the resident proportionately.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay to the resident the amount of £150 that it offered her in its final response of 6 May 2020.
  2. The landlord should conduct complaints handling refresher training with its staff to ensure that future complaints are handled in accordance with its policy.