Lambeth Council (202127127)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127127

Lambeth Council

23 May 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s property and repairs to communal areas of the building.
2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
3. The landlord’s response to disrepair in the resident’s previous property.
4. The landlord’s response to a tenancy succession/addition complaint.
5. The landlord’s treatment of the resident with unfair council tax and rent arrears accumulated at the resident’s current property and previous 2 properties.
6. The landlord’s handling of recent complaints of further noise nuisance and ASB caused by a new tenant(s) of the flat situated above the resident’s property.
7. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The landlord’s response to disrepair in the resident’s previous tenancy. These issues were raised with the landlord in complaint emails dated 9 February 2018 and 2 May 2018. The landlord issued a response on 8 July 2019 following the Ombudsman’s intervention. The available evidence does not show that the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. When the resident complained to the landlord about issues relating to his current property in 2022, he asked that it also respond to his outstanding concerns about the previous property. Due to the length of time since the resident’s stage 1 complaint response, the landlord was within its rights to decide that it would not provide a further response in relation to these concerns.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme 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. Due to the delay in escalating this matter from 2019, this Service is unable to investigate this matter.
The landlord’s response to a tenancy succession/addition complaint which the resident states was an unfair eviction after a tenancy addition application mistake by the landlord. The Ombudsman reviewed this complaint previously on case reference 201518782 and decided it was unable to investigate as the matter was subject to court proceedings.
Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. As such, because this Service has already ruled on this part of the complaint, we are unable to investigate the matter again.
The landlord’s treatment of the resident with unfair council tax and rent arrears accumulated at the resident’s current property and previous 2 properties. Within the resident’s email to the landlord dated 17 March 2022 he stated that he felt he should not be held fully accountable for all the rent and council tax arrears on the three properties the resident had lived in due to the disrepair, mistreatment and disruption he experienced.
This Service is unable to order a landlord to waive rent arrears for the reasons noted above. The Ombudsman also does not consider complaints about council tax. In accordance with paragraph 42(o) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the resident is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
The landlord’s handling of recent complaints of further noise nuisance and ASB caused by a new tenant(s) of the flat situated above the resident’s property.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that he first complained to the landlord about the condition of the property on 9 August 2019, however the landlord did not respond to him. This was despite him receiving an email acknowledging his complaint.
The resident stated he also submitted a further complaint on 13 March 2020 and received an acknowledgment email containing a complaint reference number. The landlord advised that he would receive an acknowledgment of his complaint within 2 working days. The resident has stated that he has not received any response to this complaint.
Although we acknowledge the resident did raise complaints to the landlord about these issues, there is no evidence that he pursued the complaints either with the landlord or the Ombudsman at the time. Therefore, the landlord did not have the opportunity to consider these complaints through all the stages of its complaints process. The resident may wish to consider raising these matters with the landlord as a complaint again if he has not done so already. The resident may be able to refer this new complaint to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
The resident has said that the situation affecting his property has had a negative impact on his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, however it is outside our role to assess the health implications caused by a landlord’s actions or inactions. Such matters are more suitable for consideration by the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer if it has one. However, consideration has been given to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about health and whether this response was reasonable.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy started on 16 August 2019. Another flat owned and managed by the landlord is situated above the resident’s property, and another flat is underneath his property also.
The resident has advised that he has health concerns which include scoliosis of the spine and that he suffers with anxiety. The landlord is aware of these conditions.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 15 September 2021. The resident outlined his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s responses to disrepair, pest control, ASB and a rehousing request.
On 14 October 2021, following a request for assistance made by the resident, the local authority’s noise nuisance team confirmed via email it had received his reports of noise nuisance. It was advised that it would refer his reports to the landlord to investigate if it was confirmed that his property was its responsibility. It was also advised that the noise nuisance team were operating a limited service at that time due to COVID-19 restrictions.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 October 2021 and reported the following:
1. A water leak from the property above was affecting his property and the property below his. He stated he had informed the tenant above of this 3 weeks earlier.
2. An operative had attended his property earlier that day to investigate a leak from the property above.
3. The operative was rude to him and did not show an ID badge. The operative confirmed that he was an electrician from the landlord’s repairs team.
4. He reported that on 6 October 2021 a family member of the tenant above had attacked him. He outlined that he reported this incident to the police however when officers attended, the tenant above denied this and stated there was no leak or noise from her property.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 12 November 2021 with a list of repairs which it had not addressed or failed to provide him with work order numbers:
1. Missing letter basket previously attached to communal front door to capture junk mail.
2. Damaged/missing communal front door hinge cover.
3. The bathroom ceiling with an exposed light was now buckled.
4. Works needed to make the ceiling safe, repair damaged plaster & paint.
5. Due to the leak in the bathroom bedroom & hallway, there was also skirting, door frame & general wood, paint & plaster damage in the bathroom, hallway & bedroom after the extensive leak which the resident states took weeks to be repaired.
6. Cavity walls & floors had no insulation which he stated was causing high energy costs, poor energy efficiency, environmental and noise nuisance problems.
7. There was a rat infestation within the cavity walls and floors.
8. There was no drain cover on a drain at front of house which he felt was contributing to the rat infestation.
9. Faulty communal front door which was unable to close fully. He felt that a hole at the base of the door was contributing to rodent access.
10. Water leak in communal hallway with no light in communal hallway
11. Hole at base of communal garden stairs & other locations in the communal basement. Holes under stairs & around garden contributing to rodent access.
12. The communal garden back door was damaged.
13. A blocked drain was leaking sewage into the garden.
14. A faulty dripping water tap in garden was providing easy access to the rats water supply.
15. Rotting windows in his bedroom and front room were stuck. He stated that replacements had been agreed previously with named members of the repairs team.
16. The leaking and rotten communal back door had holes in the wood and was contributing to rat access.
The landlord contacted the resident via email to acknowledge his complaint which it stated was made the previous day. From the evidence reviewed, it appears that having not received a response, the resident sent a further copy of his complaint dated 15 September 2021. The landlord stated that it would provide a written response to his complaint by 29 December 2021.
On 3 December 2021 the resident sent a report of further noise nuisance to the landlord’s tenancy enforcement team. He reported that he was disturbed by the noise of persons running in the flat above. He stated that he felt the poor insulation between the flats was making the problems worse. He asked the landlord to contact his neighbour and investigate the issues.
The landlord’s records show that it opened a new noise nuisance case on 6 December 2021 and categorised the case as medium risk. Its records also state that it attempted to contact the resident via telephone on 12 December 2021 to complete a risk assessment with him, without success. It states further that it sent a letter to the resident acknowledging his case.
Also on 12 December 2021 the landlord’s records state that it sent a letter to the resident’s neighbour advising that a complaint of noise nuisance had been received.
On 23 December 2021 the landlord provided the resident with incident diary sheets to complete with details of any further noise nuisance he experienced. It requested that completed diaries were returned within 2 weeks, otherwise the case would be closed. It also provided the resident with the details of its noise witnessing service and advised him to download a phone app to record incidents of noise nuisance.
On 30 December 2021 the resident reported to the landlord:
1. He believed that his neighbour above had deliberately flooded his flat after receiving contact from the landlord regarding his noise complaint.
2. His neighbour had made false allegations about him.
3. His neighbour’s associates were harassing him by coming to his property and pushing him. He also reported that he had received homophobic slurs.
4. The noise app had stopped working but he had made his own recordings of the continuing noise nuisance.
The landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour on 6 January 2022. Its records state that it asked the neighbour if there was any way she could reduce the noise. the neighbour stated that she had installed “adequate flooring” in late December 2021 and that she could not stop her children from playing inside the property. It also determined that the flooring within the neighbour’s property was adequate.
The landlord contacted the neighbour again on 10 January 2022 and its records state that the case officer discussed the resident’s reports of being pushed by her visitors, homophobic slurs and making false allegations. The landlord’s records do not show what the outcome of this contact was.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 20 January 2022 asking when he would be able to use the noise app again. He stated that the ongoing noise nuisance and harassment from his neighbour was becoming a serious health and safety issue. The landlord replied the following day and stated:
1. It would need time to review the 1330 noise app recordings the resident had made since 18 December 2021. It also confirmed that it had restricted his use of the noise app.
2. It asked the resident to only make 2 or 3 recordings per day and to use the diary sheets provided.
3. It advised that some of the recordings it had already reviewed seemed to show normal household noise.
On 22 January 2022 the resident contacted the local authority’s public protection and regulatory service and reported ongoing incidents of noise nuisance and also that he had been pushed by his neighbour’s sister. The resident sent a further email on 26 January 2022 and stated that he felt the noise issues were due to inadequate insulation between the floors and in the wall cavities. He asked who the best team would be to speak to about insulating the floors to reduce the noise. The resident received a reply on 28 January 2022 and was advised that the landlord should be investigating his concerns. It also advised that the resident could look to take his own legal action to address the noise nuisance.
The landlord provided the resident with what is understood to be a stage one complaint response on 29 January 2022. It stated:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint dated 29 November 2021.
2. It had raised a repair regarding the leak in the communal area which it expected to complete on 24 February 2022.
3. It had raised a request with its pest control team on 25 January 2022.
4. It had raised a repair for a drain cover in the communal area. It stated this should have been completed on 25 January 2022.
5. It had raised a repair for a broken window in the communal hallway. It stated this should have been completed on 25 January 2022.
6. It had completed a repair to the communal back door and a post-repair inspection was completed on 11 January 2022.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 1 February 2022 and outlined that numerous repairs were still incomplete. He requested that its reviewed all of its repairs as it was incorrectly marking repairs as completed. The resident included a number of photos and repairs request logs within his reply.
On 3 February 2022 the resident reported further noise nuisance incidents. The landlord’s tenancy enforcement team referred the case to its public protection and regulatory service for further investigation. On that same day the public protection and regulatory service sent an email to the resident advising that they had not carried out any visits to the property dues to COVID-19 restrictions in place at that time. It was also stated that the landlord had incorrectly advised him to keep submitting reports of noise nuisance via its online system. Details were provided to the resident on how to report these matters to the landlord.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on his formal complaint on 12 February 2022. He also reported further issues with cracks in the walls and ceilings which were enabling vermin to enter the property. He also stated that he felt unsafe in the property due to the cracks. The landlord replied and stated that repairs to the cracks in the walls were booked with its contractors. Also at this time the resident raised concerns again about the poor condition of the windows in the property. He referred to an agreement that the landlord made when he moved in to the property that they would replace the windows.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage one complaint response on 21 Feb 2022 in which it stated:
1. A surveyor would attend the property on 1 March 2022 to carry out an inspection for damp and mould and to assess if he could remain in the property whilst any works were completed.
2. It provided updates on other repairs at the property and stated that it had re-raised work orders with its contractors for the following:
  1. Operatives had attended on 22 November 2021 and 2 February 2022 to trace and remedy a water leak.
  2. Repair to the heating system.
  3. Repair a defective bathroom light switch. It stated that an operative attended on 31 January 2022 and could not complete the repair as the ceiling was damaged. A request was made for other operatives to attend to the ceiling.
  4. Replace a glass panel in a communal door.
  5. An appointment had been made for 17 February 2022 to repair a front room and bedroom window, but this was cancelled by the resident.
3. Its housing management and community works team would renew a communal door and renew garden paving flags.
4. In relation to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB, it had opened a case file on 3 December 2021. It stated it would pass the resident’s concerns to the relevant officer.
5. It provided the resident with details on how to register for rehousing. It stated that it was not aware of a current rehousing application for him.
6. It partially upheld the complaint and offered £315 compensation due to the delays and inconvenience the resident experienced. It confirmed that payment was credited to his rent account.
The resident contacted the landlord via email on 25 February 2022 and outlined his dissatisfaction with its stage one complaint response. He advised again that there were a number of repairs still incomplete. The resident contacted his local councillor to seek assistance in resolving matters with the landlord on 26 February 2022.
The records provided by the resident and the landlord confirm that the resident was admitted to hospital on 2 March 2022 for spinal surgery, following a fall in his bathroom. The resident asked the landlord to rearrange repairs appointments which could not be completed as he was in hospital. The resident also advised the landlord that trying to recover from his surgery in the property was difficult due to the state of disrepair.
Also during March 2022, the resident was in contact with a local councillor about his complaint against the landlord. The landlord arranged for a survey of the damp at the property to take place on 31 March 2022.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 22 April 2022 which stated:
1. A surveyor had attended the property in late March 2022 and confirmed:
  1. Works were needed to replaster the bathroom, hall and bedroom following a leak.
  2. The landlord’s contractors had an existing order to replace windows at the property.
  3. The ceilings were safe and the landlord stated that the resident did not need to rehoused whilst its contractors completed the works.
2. It booked a boiler repair to take place on 3 March 2022 and left a voicemail for the resident, confirming the visit. Due to not getting access to the property on 3 March 2022, this repair was rescheduled for 17 March 2022.
3. An electrician attended on 17 March 2022 and identified that a plumber was required. The appointment was rebooked for 31 March 2022.
4. A plasterer was booked to attend on 18 March 2022 to carry out an initial inspection and it had left a voicemail with the resident to confirm. The plasterer did not gain access to the property on 18 March 2022. The appointment was rebooked for 31 March 2022.
5. An appointment with pest control had been made on 25 February 2022 but this was cancelled by the resident. A further appointment was made for 4 March 2022 however there was no answer at the property. It stated that pest control would need to link in with its housing team to rearrange.
6. It stated that having reviewed the resident’s footage of the reported noise nuisance, it had determined that the incidents were not ASB. It advised the resident to contact the local noise response team and provided their contact details and hours of operation.
7. It listed a number of repairs required in the communal areas of the building. It stated that a repair to the communal door were completed on 11 April 2022 but further plastering and rendering was required. It provided a target date of 12 May 2022 for these works.
8. It stated that it could not address the resident’s concerns about being rehoused into this property, and his concerns about his two previous properties. It stated that these matters were not raised in his stage one complaint and therefore it would not comment on them in its response to his complaint.

Post complaints process

In April 2022 the landlord’s ASB team contacted the resident’s social worker due to their concerns about the resident’s health. On 28 April 2022 the social worker responded and advised:
1. They had serious concerns around the impact on the resident’s health of the ongoing noise nuisance and his current living conditions.
2. It was their opinion that the resident needed to move to another property as soon as possible.
The resident has reported to the Ombudsman and the landlord that many repairs are still incomplete at the property. It is noted that the landlord has offered the resident a temporary move to another of its properties so that the repairs can be completed however the resident has raised concerns about the suitability of the temporary property.
The resident has instructed a solicitor regarding the ongoing disrepair concerns at the property. It is confirmed that his case is not currently being considered by the courts.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles required landlords to:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s repairs policy lists 5 categories of repairs which have different target times, from 24 hours to 90 days, depending on the risk and urgency of each repair.
The landlord’s temporary decant policy outlines that temporary decants in order to remedy disrepair in its properties. It states decants should only be agreed as a last resort. It states that its staff should take into account resident’s health issues and vulnerabilities when considering whether it is reasonable for a resident to remain in the property whilst repairs are carried out.
The landlord’s ASB policy outlines how it will tackle ASB within its communities, which states:
1. It outlines what it considers to be ASB.
2. It takes a strong stance against hate crime and hate related incidents and is committed taking prompt and decisive action when these incidents occur.
3. It states there are some matters it will not investigate including:
  1. Day-to-day living noise, which is not excessive, nor unreasonable.
  2. Normal behaviour occurring at unusual times, for example, due to different working patterns and providing the resident is being considerate.
  3. Noise transference due to poor sound insulation.
4. It operates a victim-focussed service and it will continuously risk assess to understand the impact of ASB and it will signpost to relevant support provisions.
The landlord’s complaints policy lists the following:
1. It will respond to complaints at its local resolution stage (stage 1) within 20 working days.
2. It will respond to complaints at its review stage (stage 2) within 20 working days.
3. It is noted from the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 22 April 2022 that if the resident was unhappy with its response, he could bring his complaint to the Ombudsman but also to a local MP or councillor.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property

It is clear from the evidence reviewed that the resident has reported repair issues at the property for a significant period of time. Many of the repairs still remain incomplete, as reported by the resident. It is also evident that the landlord’s position on temporarily moving the resident to another property has now changed and it is seeking a suitable property for him. It is positive that the landlord has changed its position in this regard, however the Ombudsman finds that the landlord could have considered this much sooner and that it did not follow the provisions listed in its temporary decant policy at the earliest opportunity. This could have gone some way to improving the resident’s living conditions.
It is noted that the landlord’s records state that the resident cancelled a number of appointments made by its contractors to address the disrepair. Also, the landlord states that the resident did not grant access for arranged appointments. In light of this, it would be difficult for the landlord to complete repairs within the resident’s property and this is likely to have contributed to the delays in completing repairs. However, it would be reasonable to expect that the landlord took into consideration the resident’s health needs and availability when making appointments with him.
It is clear from the evidence considered in this report that the resident has experienced significant time, trouble and inconvenience in his attempts to get the landlord to carry out repairs at the property. The resident states that he has experienced significant stress in this case. In order to put things right, the landlord needs to engage with the resident and provide him with a time-specific schedule of works for all remaining repairs at the property. The landlord should also pay the resident £800 compensation for this aspect of his complaint.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests that compensation awards in this range are appropriate where there have been significant errors by the landlord over a prolonged period of time which caused distress and/or inconvenience to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance

It is clear that the resident submitted a significant number of recordings of the noise nuisance he experienced through the noise app. The landlord could have done more to engage with the resident and explain clearly how to make the most effective use of the app. Had it done this, its investigations into the noise could have been significantly quicker as it would not have needed to review the large number of recordings. Also, the high number of recordings made by the resident would have taken him a long time to make. The landlord could have avoided the time and trouble experienced by the resident in this regard.
The landlord is expected to review and assess any incidents of ASB and noise nuisance which it receives. Its ASB policy states that incidents including day to day living noise, children playing and noise transference due to poor sound insulation would fall outside of the scope of its policy. The landlord should have been clearer with the resident that it was unlikely to investigate these matters much sooner in the case. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations in this regard.
When receiving reports such as this, it is important that the landlord does not dismiss the complaints as being an everyday household noise and outside of its control without first investigating. The available evidence shows that it spoke with the neighbour and inspected the flooring in the flat above. Although the landlord provided incident sheets to the resident and advised him to use the noise app, it failed to explore any options to try to resolve the matter. Once the landlord was satisfied that the reports were the result of normal household noise, it should have taken steps to promote good neighbour relations. The principal method to achieve this is via mediation. The landlord does not appear to have considered this option. it would have been beneficial for the neighbour to understand the scale of the noise the resident was experiencing and the impact it was having on him. This could have helped them to alter their behaviour and identify ways to decrease their level of noise transference.
The landlord could also have inspected both properties to identify measures it could take to help reduce noise transference. Simple measures such as installing soft door-closure mechanisms, door pads and/or anti-vibration washing machine mats should have been considered. The landlord’s lack of action has left the resident feeling that his concerns about noise have been ignored. Dismissing the noise the resident is experiencing as ‘normal’ – when it is causing him considerable distress – is likely only to entrench the dispute, particularly when he has been asked to make countless recordings and completed diary sheets to no avail. As is shown by this case, noise nuisance complaints left unaddressed can easily escalate, entrench and expand into other issues. This can erode community bonds – leading to a wider, deeper sense of dissatisfaction. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s noise complaint seriously, sensitively or proportionately to the distress it was causing him.
As part of its investigations into the noise nuisance, the landlord advised the resident to contact the local authority’s noise team. The resident followed this advice but the noise team informed him that the landlord should be investigating his reports. It is also noted that the noise team advised the resident in February 2022 that it had not attended his property to try and professionally witness the noise nuisance due to COVID-19 restrictions at that time. The landlord should have made checks with the noise team before referring the resident to it. By giving the resident incorrect advice his expectations were raised in that what it considered to be normal household noise would be investigated by another team. Also, the landlord is part of the same local authority as the noise team, therefore it should have reasonably known that witnessing visits in person were not possible at that time.
The records provided by the resident and the landlord confirm that the resident reported on 15 October 2021 that he had been assaulted by a visitor to his neighbour’s property. The landlord has highlighted that the police record of the incident differs from the resident’s version of events. The police ultimately chose not to take any further action. It is unclear why the landlord took until 6 December 2021 to open a new ASB case file. It is also unclear if the landlord made contact with the local police, or carried out investigations with other local residents who may have witnessed this incident. The landlord’s records show that it was not until 10 January 2022 when it raised the alleged assault and homophobic abuse with the neighbour. These are significant failings and when also considering the potential further risks to the resident due to his health concerns, the landlord did not provide a victim-focussed approach as is outlined within its ASB policy.
The landlord’s case notes show that it did attempt to complete a risk assessment with the resident when it opened an ASB case file in December 2021, however could not speak to the resident. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when it made further attempts to complete the risk assessment. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord offered any support to the resident. Whilst the landlord had assessed that the reported noise nuisance from his neighbour’s property was not considered to be anti-social, it was clear that the resident continued to be affected by it. Offering him relevant support at the earliest opportunity could have assisted him. Also, it was not until late April 2022 that the landlord’s ASB team were in contact with the resident’s social worker due to their concerns about the resident. As the landlord was well aware of the resident’s health issues from its frequent contact with him, over a long period of time, it should have offered him support and contacted his social worker much sooner. This is a significant failing as the resident has a range of vulnerabilities and health concerns which were impacted by the ASB he experienced. The landlord should assess the resident’s risk, with due regard to his vulnerabilities and make any appropriate offers of support to him.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above, the landlord should pay the resident £600 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of his ASB and noise nuisance reports.

Complaint handling

The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 15 Sept 2021. The landlord’s records show that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint in November 2021, after the resident had chased it for a response. The landlord incorrectly advised the resident that it would respond to his complaint which he had submitted the previous week. It stated it would provide its stage one complaint response by 29 December 2021. However, it did not provide its stage one complaint response until 21 Feb 2022. This was a period of 111 working days and was way beyond the 20-working day response time outlined in its complaints policy.
Whilst the landlord did apologise for the delay in providing its stage one complaint response, it did not provide the resident with any explanation for the delay. It is also confusing that the resident received what appears to be 2 stage one complaints within weeks of each other. In any event, the earlier response of 29 January 2022 took the landlord 95 working days to provide which again, was way beyond the 20 working day response time outlined in its complaints policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response does not confirm if it does or does not uphold his complaints following a review of its stage one complaint response. It is also noted that it took the landlord 39 working days to provide its stage 2 response from the resident requesting an escalation of his complaint on 25 February 2022. This is again outside of the 20-working day response time listed within the landlord’s complaints policy. By not providing the resident with clear complaint responses within its listed timescales, the resident was left within the landlord’s complaint process which was unreasonable and would have caused frustration and worry as he did not know when his complaint would be finalised.
In its stage one complaint response dated 21 February the landlord confirmed that it had made a compensation payment of £315 to the resident’s rent account. It stated that this was to reflect the delays and inconvenience he had experienced. Whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord has attempted to put things right by making this payment, the amount is not proportionate to the level of detriment experienced by the resident. The landlord should pay a further £85 compensation, bringing the total to £400 for its errors in complaint handling.
The resident has experienced significant time and trouble in making and pursuing his complaints with the landlord. He has advised that having to involve his local councillor to assist did enable a quicker response from the landlord, however it is unreasonable that the resident had to do this.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above suggests that compensation in this range is appropriate where there are errors by the landlord which affected the resident and the landlord has acknowledged the errors but has not done enough to put right them right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to disrepair in the resident’s previous tenancy is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to a tenancy succession/addition complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s treatment of the resident with unfair council tax and rent arrears accumulated at the resident’s current property and previous 2 properties is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of recent complaints of further noise nuisance and ASB caused by a new tenant(s) of the flat situated above the resident’s property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings outlined within this report.
2. Discuss with the resident his needs, with a particular focus on what additional support, consideration or variation in usual service provision might be appropriate in respect of the resident’s health concerns and vulnerabilities.
3. Contact the resident and arrange an inspection of Flat B to identify any repairs within the property that require attention. The landlord should also consider if there are any practical steps it can take within Flat B to reduce noise transference. In particular, the landlord should consider if addressing the empty spaces within the ceiling would decrease sound transmission. Within 14 days of the inspection the landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a written and time-specific action plan for the completion of each repair/improvement.
4. Contact the resident and arrange a pest control inspection of Flat B and the building. Within 14 days of the inspection the landlord must confirm in writing whether it identified signs of rat infestation. If signs of rat infestation are found, the landlord should also provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a written time-specific action plan for addressing the presence of rats and their access points.
5. Contact the resident to offer any additional support it can to help them arrange a transfer to a new property.
6. Review its handling of the resident’s noise complaint on this occasion and carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations (numbers 24-32) in the Spotlight report on noise complaints.
7. Pay the resident directly £1,485.00 in compensation which is comprised of:
  1. £800 in relation to its failings in the handling of repairs at the property.
  2. £600 in relation to its failings in response to the resident’s reports of ASB behaviour and noise nuisance.
  3. £85 in relation to its failings in its complaint handling approaches.

It is the Ombudsman’s established approach that compensation awarded by our service should be paid direct to residents and should not be credited to their rent account.

Recommendations

The landlord is to:
1. Produce a document for its residents outlining its position on the use of the noise app in relevant investigations.
2. Contact the resident to discuss the works being completed in Flat C. The landlord is expected to inform the resident of the works being completed, the hours of the day that disruption is likely to occur and the expected completion date. The landlord should also confirm that it has considered practical measures that can be completed as part of the current works to help reduce noise issues from Flat C.
3. Contact the resident to address his concerns about littering in the communal areas and issues with the front door to the building.