London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202205532)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205532

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

30 March 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s report of noise from her upstairs neighbour.
2. Reports about outstanding repairs following several leaks.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and the property is a converted ground floor one bedroom flat.
There was a history of noise complaints and outstanding repairs issues from November 2021.
The first floor flat is occupied by a mother and child who has some vulnerabilities relating to autism. For the purpose of this report the mother will be referred to as the neighbour.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy defines anti-social behaviour (ASB) as:
1. Noise where it is persistent, deliberate, or targeted.
2. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to a specific resident or property of the landlord.
3. Conduct that has a damaging impact on landlord properties or communal areas.
4. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to the local community.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it does not regard the following as ASB:
1. Noise caused by people going about their daily lives, e.g., using staircases.
2. Young people and/or children playing in authorised play areas.
In addition, it says:
1. When considering whether a case is or is not ASB, it will take into account vulnerabilities or any other issues facing a resident, and how that may impact its ability to resolve issues without support. Where issues are not ASB or other housing management-related, it may refer residents to other agencies who could offer them support where required.
2. It will keep under review the information about cases, including vulnerabilities and circumstances relating to all parties, and adjust its approach to managing the case as necessary.
3. It will take a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling anti-social behaviour. It will work with agencies such as social services, environmental health agencies, the police, mediation services, local authorities, Youth Offending Teams and any other statutory or non-statutory agency that could contribute to the prevention or resolution of anti-social behaviour. It will ensure that where required the relevant agencies are consulted before deciding on legal action.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
1. Day-to-day repairs to be carried out at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
2. Emergency works where there is an immediate danger to the resident within 24 hours.
3. For emergency works that occur out of hours, it will attend within four hours. The out of hours service is to ‘make safe’ and lower the immediate risk. The follow-on repair will then be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
4. It will only redecorate following a repair where it has an obligation or in exceptional circumstances entirely at its discretion. It will make good any surfaces affected by the repair ready for residents to redecorate.
The noise app is a noise monitoring app which a resident can download to their phone to record the noise they are experiencing. The is a time-stamped record of the noise that can be provided to their landlord.

Summary of events

On 12 November 2021, the resident called the landlord to report a leak coming from the flat above which was affecting her electrics. The repair log shows this was made safe the same day.
The repair log also shows on 18 and 22 November 2021 the resident again reported she was experiencing water ingress from the flat above affecting her electrics and was without lighting in her bathroom.
On 23 November 2021, a further report was logged detailing “no power to the bathroom and the pullcord not working”. It also noted that the bathroom had no natural lighting. The log evidenced this as completed on 26 November 2021.
On 23 December 2021, the resident reported she had experienced numerous floods and noise nuisance coming from the flat above. The resident advised the child had autism and was “jumping all night and all day”. The landlord advised the resident it would not take action regarding children playing, particularly those with vulnerabilities. It then asked her to record the noise using the noise app.
On 19 January 2022, the resident provided numerous noise app recordings to the landlord. The case notes said that the recordings need to be assessed to decide if an ASB case is required and to update the resident.
On the same day, the landlord telephoned the resident. The call log says that the resident was busy at work and agreed email communications.
On 24 January 2022, the landlord emailed the resident confirming its telephone conversation saying that the resident “agreed to expand on the noise recordings… so that it can take the case forward”.
The resident sent an email on 28 February 2022 requesting the landlord call her to discuss the noise issue.
On 2 March 2022, the resident telephoned her landlord requesting a call back from her case officer. The call log noted that the resident wanted to discuss an action plan regarding ongoing noise issues. She said the ceiling was going to collapse because of the child jumping and banging. Following the resident’s comments, the landlord offered to “make it safe” although she declined. She also asked the landlord what it was going to do about the flood damage. It advised her that it would carry out any repairs, however any damage to personal belongings would have to be claimed via its insurance. It noted the resident was unhappy with the advice it provided.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 4 March 2022 and sent an authorisation form for the noise case to be progressed. She signed and returned it the same day.
On 4 March 2022, the landlord emailed the neighbour confirming it had tried to call and requested she call back.
The call log for 22 March 2022 shows the resident called to speak with her case officer urgently. She followed this up with an email requesting an update regarding her noise case. She reiterated that the noise is ongoing “all day and all night”.
On 24 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident saying that:
1. It had telephoned her neighbour and sent an email but received no response.
2. It would send a letter via post and if it did not get a response, it would carry out a visit.
3. It was working alongside other organisations to try and resolve the problem.
The resident responded the same day saying that:
1. She cannot use her bedroom as the noise is “unbearable” and that she is sleeping in her living room.
2. She recorded the noise on her phone of screaming/shouting and constant jumping.
3. She was disappointed that she had left numerous messages but not received a call back.
4. She wanted a plan put in place to resolve the issue.
On 11 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord saying she had not received a reply to her email of 24 March 2022. She said she had left “multiple” messages but received no response. She said she did not think her complaint was being taken seriously and she would escalate matters if she did not receive a response by the end of the day.
The resident sent her stage one complaint to the landlord on 13 April 2022 saying that:
1. Since she moved into the property in September 2021, she had been disturbed by noise from the flat above her. Mainly a child jumping and running back and forth between “6am and 2am”.
2. She tried speaking to her neighbour, but the noise continued.
3. Her property was flooded from the flat above causing damage to over £200 worth of personal items.
4. Her neighbour refused access to the emergency plumber resulting in only a part repair. She said that she paid to have the damage repaired as her landlord could not provide an appointment for a repair for several months.
5. There was a second flood on 23 December 2021 causing a further £100 of damage to food items in the kitchen. However, she was unable to schedule a suitable time for the landlord to repair the kitchen.
6. She began making recordings using the noise app on 24 December 2021 and one month later the landlord called to discuss the recordings. She said at the time she was unable to speak and would call it back.
7. She made numerous requests between February and March 2022 for an update. She received no response apart from a request for her to complete consent form to take the case further.
8. She sent a follow up email on 11 April 2022 to which she had no reply.
9. She acknowledged the vulnerabilities of her neighbour’s child, however due to the noise she could not use her bedroom and was sleeping in her living room, which was “not fair”.
10. She would like to explore the possibility of making separate front doors like other properties on the street.
The resident also provided a timeline of events and photos of the damp staining throughout her property.
On 1 May 2022, the resident reported a hole in her ceiling that she thought was caused by her neighbour “banging on the floor”. The hole was approximately 4cm in diameter. This was repaired on 3 May 2022.
The landlord held an internal meeting on 3 May 2022 in which it outlined the following:
1. It would visit the neighbour as it was unable to make contact via phone or email.
2. It advised the resident to keep a record of the noise and call the noise team should the noise occur late at night.
On 3 May 2022, the landlord sent its stage one response saying that:
1. It spoke at length with the resident about the impact the noise was having on her.
2. The resident confirmed the repairs were completed to her ceiling where there had been a leak.
3. It explained it would be visiting the neighbour as it had been unable to contact her.
4. It apologised for not keeping in contact and acknowledged the importance of returning the resident’s calls and keeping her updated on any progress.
5. It sincerely apologised for the service failure and awarded the resident £130 compensation.
The same day the resident reported a leak from the flat above and that the pull cord in her bathroom was not working. The repair log evidenced it was dealt with and made safe that day.
On 4 May 2022, the landlord suggested mediation to the resident, but this was declined as she did not think this would resolve the noise problem.
The same day it contacted the neighbour to discuss the noise complaint and discussed options to address the problem. This included referrals to other organisations and offering to install new carpets throughout her property.
The case notes for the 4 May 2022 show an ASB case was opened.
On 5 May 2022, the landlord spoke with the neighbour and followed up the discussion in an email. It said:
1. It offered advice regarding different housing options.
2. It offered to pay to recarpet her property.
3. It suggested a referral to social services and would work with other support agencies.
The repair log shows that on 12 May 2022 works were raised for a new bathroom external light switch to be installed. The log also shows that this was completed on 10 June 2022.
On 23 May 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting her complaint be escalated. She explained that:
1. She was not happy with the progress of her noise complaint and that she was advised it was going to take a long time to resolve. She wanted a definitive timescale.
2. The noise was affecting her health and subsequent medical treatment she was receiving.
3. She would often sleep in her car as the noise was causing her distress.
4. The landlord failed to address the concerns she raised regarding the damage to her property and the ceiling falling down.
5. It did not address how the “constant leaks” from the flat above would be managed going forward as it was a reoccurring problem.
6. She raised concerns relating to making an insurance claim as this could increase any premiums she had to pay. She wanted confirmation that the landlord was going to cover this cost.
7. The ceiling in the living room had been repaired but it was uneven and needed to be repainted.
8. The contractor said that the bathroom pullcord could not be reinstated as the ceiling was too damaged from the numerous leaks. Therefore, a light switch would need to be installed outside of the bathroom. It would need authorisation from the landlord to do this.
9. She still had no working light in her bathroom.
10. She was concerned that following damage to her property she was given appointments for repairs 3-4 months in advance which was “unfair”.
11. She said she had sent a significant amount of noise recordings providing evidence of the situation and it was not appropriate for a child with such vulnerabilities to be housed in an upstairs house conversion.
12. The landlord should either move her neighbour, soundproof the property, or move her to a safe and secure location.
13. She had the right to enjoy her home, which she could not do.
14. The situation was time consuming, and she did not want to take legal action but would do as it was impacting her “physical, mental, emotional and financial health”.
On 6 June 2022 the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour. Details of this were not available to this service.
Internal emails in June 2022 show that it liaised with other departments regarding rehousing, safeguarding, and soundproofing.
Email correspondence of 15 June 2022 shows the landlord offered further advice to the neighbour and details were provided in relation to the vulnerabilities.
The landlord sent its stage two response on 1 July 2022 saying that:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident.
2. It confirmed it had awarded the resident £130 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience in relation to the anti-social behaviour (ASB) and flooding.
3. It was “understandable” that the resident was unhappy with the stage one response as the resident felt all the points she raised had not been addressed.
4. It had called the resident to discuss the stage one response which it then sent via email.
5. It said it would be visiting her neighbour in relation to the noise and would keep her updated in relation to the ASB case.
6. The resident wanted a definitive timeline of when the ASB case will be resolved, reiterating the impact the noise was having on her health.
7. It had finally completed the works to the bathroom light pull cord on 13 June 2022 and no leaks were noted. It also contacted the contractor regarding the works who confirmed the lights were left in “good working order and no further works were needed.”
8. Following an emergency callout to reports of water damaged and unsafe ceiling, its plasterers attended within 24 hours. It noted that the resident was unhappy with the work saying it was “uneven”.
9. It confirmed it had booked a surveyor visit for 6 July 2022 to establish what was required for:
  1. Repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
  2. The residents’ requests for soundproofing.
  3. The residents’ requests for separate front door entrances.
10. The resident was advised to claim for water damaged personal belongings through its insurers however she had concerns this would increase her premiums. It therefore confirmed that this would not happen as it was at fault. It also said that any claim for damages cannot be handled by customer relations as per its policy and provided the resident with its insurance details.
11. In relation to her noise complaint, it was a sensitive situation and therefore would not be resolved swiftly and could not provide a definite timeline.
12. It required both parties’ cooperation and understands that mediation was declined in this instance.
13. It confirmed following the resident’s noise app recordings, it sent a warning letter to her neighbour, and it would escalate the case, keeping the resident updated.
14. It provided the resident with details on mutual exchange and to contact her local authority should she still feel the need to move.
15. It acknowledged its service failure, resulting in inconvenience and distress to the resident and awarded her a further £100 compensation:
  1. £20 late response.
  2. £80 distress and inconvenience.
16. The resident should contact it to accept the offer and it could take 21 days for the cheque to arrive.
17. The resident was directed to contact this service should she remain dissatisfied.
On 3 July 2022, the resident responded to the landlord’s stage two response saying that:
1. It had just repeated its stage one response.
2. Her correspondence had been ignored despite it “promising” to keep her updated.
3. She had not received the £130 compensation nor any correspondence relating to this.
4. She said she had submitted a significant amount of noise app recordings which demonstrated the extent of the noise.
5. She was without lighting to her bathroom for 6 weeks but a new pullcord had now been fitted.
6. She disagreed that no further works were required as there was a hole where the previous light pullcord used to be.
7. She again asked what the landlord was going to do to manage the “constant floods”.
8. Due to her work commitments, she could not be available for appointments at such short notice. Furthermore, she wanted confirmation of what the inspection was for.
9. She disagreed with the landlord’s advice regarding making an insurance claim and again reiterated her concerns that her premiums would be affected.
10. She did not want to move from her property but wanted the noise issue addressed, suggesting that her neighbour should be moved to more suitable accommodation. Nevertheless, she had registered for a mutual exchange but did not feel it was appropriate as she would have to disclose the noise issue.
11. She did not think the landlord had “honestly” acknowledged the distress and inconvenience the noise and repair issues were causing her particularly in offering her £100 compensation.
On 5 July 2022, the landlord contacted the neighbour enquiring if she had installed floor coverings and requesting a video call to check what was in place.
On 7 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident again saying that:
1. It was sorry she was dissatisfied with the response.
2. It had thoroughly investigated her complaint by studying the repair report and speaking with all staff involved including any contractors.
3. It acknowledged a service failure regarding the lack of communication relating to her ASB case.
4. It had enlisted a “specialist team” due to the sensitive nature of the ASB.
5. It would continue to monitor the situation however a resolution will not be immediate as the “additional needs of the offending party.”
6. It apologised that the £130 compensation from stage one had not been paid and would make arrangements for this to be done on 8 July 2022.
7. The noise recordings the resident provided demonstrated some of the noise was occurring in “unsociable hours” and as a result an ASB case was created. The offending party was aware, and it gave the name of the staff member dealing with it.
8. It was sorry for the “miscommunication” concerning the bathroom light. It confirmed that the light was in working order so did not need further work from an electrician but acknowledge further plastering works was needed, which would be expedited. It said any painting as a result it usually the responsibility of the resident.
9. It said until the surveyor’s inspection has been carried out it cannot confirm any further works.
10. In relation to the insurance claim, it had spoken with its solicitor who advised it was not liable as it was not the cause of the leak.
11. It was sorry the resident’s health was suffering and would liaise with a new specialist housing team with how best to support her.
12. The quickest resolution would be rehousing her neighbour and asked for her understanding and patience in the meantime.
13. It awarded compensation in the amount of £800:
  1. £130 already awarded at stage one.
  2. Distress and inconvenience £400 (£50 a month x8 months).
  3. Right to repair £250 (delay in fixing bathroom light).
  4. £20 delay in response.
14. It also said it would reimburse the cost of redecoration the resident incurred if she provided receipts.
On 18 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord saying:
1. She felt like things were just going back and forth without much movement as to a resolution.
2. She wanted clarification as to what it was going to do to move her neighbour as she was cornered a move could take a long time.
The landlord responded the same day advising the resident that her neighbour qualified for a “priority medical move” but this would be dependent on a suitable property becoming available and the co-operation of her neighbour.
On 20 July 2022 the landlord carried out an inspection of both the resident’s property and that of her neighbour. The surveyors case notes said that:
1. It advised both residents it does not carry out sound proofing and would not do any works to separate the front doors as this would be deemed an improvement rather than a repair.
2. The resident asked it to action the following works:
  1. Repair the hole in the bathroom ceiling and paint it.
  2. Stain block and paint the kitchen ceiling, touching up paintwork to the panelling.
  3. Repair the crack to her bedroom wall.
  4. It noted that the resident thought the crack could be due to excessive noise and water leaks. It said it should be monitored as the crack was not deemed large enough to be a structural problem.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 August 2022 providing dates for the works to be carried out.
On 8 August 2022 the resident responded advising she was not available for those dates, and it would need to arrange a mutually agreeable time. It responded the same day providing further dates and time for the works. In addition, it said if the appointment was not suitable the resident should call its customer service centre.
The resident responded again reiterating it would have to arrange a mutually agreeable time for the works to be undertaken. She wanted to know why it would not telephone her to discuss her complaint and felt it was clear it did not want to speak to her.
Separately, on 8 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord requesting an update in relation to her noise complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 August 2022 confirming a telephone conversation saying that:
1. It would:
  1. Refer the case to its legal team for further action.
  2. Speak to the neighbour again.
  3. Continue to update the resident on progress.
2. The resident should:
  1. Speak to the local authority noise team.
  2. Approach the local authority for temporary housing whilst looking for a permanent solution.
On 30 August, 1 September, and 16 September 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord requesting an update to her noise complaint.
On 17 September 2022, the local authority advised the landlord:
1. No information was available to pursue formal action under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to take action against the source.
2. To seek a mediatory solution.
3. To consult with social services for intervention and support. Therefore, it should make the necessary enquiries regarding further support for the alleged source.
The landlord arranged a site visit to the neighbour on 29 September 2022 however this was cancelled the day before.
Following this service’s recent contact with the resident, she advised that the redecoration works to the bathroom, living room and kitchen remain outstanding and she is still experiencing noise from her neighbour.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the residents reports of noise from her upstairs neighbour.

This service acknowledges that this is a difficult situation for the resident and recognises that the noise reported to the landlord has caused her distress. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of anti-social behaviour and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for anti-social behaviour; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s policy on ASB says that when considering whether a case is or is not ASB, it will take into account vulnerabilities or any other issues facing a resident, and how this might impact their ability to resolve issues without support. It defines ASB as noise where it is persistent, deliberate or targeted and conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause distress to a specific resident. It says that it takes a multi-agency approach by working with agencies such as social services, environmental health, mediation services and local authorities.
It has been acknowledged that although this noise complaint could be addressed under its ASB policy because it is considered “persistent” and “likely to cause distress.” It is not always an appropriate policy to apply in certain circumstances of a case. This service’s spotlight report on noise complaints highlights the need for landlords to develop the correct approach to ensure a fair and reasonable response, particularly in those instances where the noise is non-statutory and not anti-social behaviour.
Keeping that in mind, its policy does go on to say that it will keep under review the information about cases, including vulnerabilities and circumstances relating to all parties, and adjust its approach to managing the case, as necessary, which is fair.
The resident made her initial noise report on 23 December 2021 regarding a child running and jumping in the flat above her. She explained that the child had autism and the noise would occur all day and night. The landlord initially responded by telling the resident it was normal living sounds and it would not take action especially given the vulnerabilities of the child. This was unreasonable as the resident had made it clear the nature of the noise was not simply a child playing but as a result of some vulnerabilities. She went further to explain that the noise was also occurring during the night, which indicated that it was not simply a case that should be classified as normal living sounds but required a different approach when investigating the complaint.
Nevertheless, the landlord changed its stance and acted appropriately by asking the resident to record the noise using the noise app as this would support its investigation. By doing this, it demonstrated it acted in line with its policy which was adjusting its approach in managing the case by reviewing the circumstances of the case.
The resident submitted noise recordings on 19 January 2022. The corresponding case notes said the recordings needed to be assessed to decide if an ASB case was required. There was no supporting evidence to detail if the recordings were listened to and what was contained in the recordings. It did, however, contact the resident on 24 January 2022 asking her to provide further recordings so that it could progress the case, which was reasonable.
Between February and March 2022, the resident asked several times for an action plan to be put in place to address the noise issues. This was not actioned despite this forming part of the landlord’s policy for ASB case management. Although it did not open a formal ASB case until 4 May 2022, it should have followed its policy during the initial stages of the investigation and an action plan put in place to resolve the problem. Having an action plan would have reduced any unnecessary delay in progression of the case and shown the resident that her complaint was being taken seriously.
Prior to the ASB case being opened the landlord had tried to contact the neighbour by telephone and email without success. It advised the resident that it would therefore write to the neighbour and visit if no response was received from its correspondence. Not visiting following two failed contact attempts caused further delay in making contact with the neighbour which was unreasonable.
The resident made her first complaint in December 2021 and by March 2022 there had been no dialogue between the landlord and the neighbour. It should have therefore been more proactive in its approach when trying to engage the neighbour. This could have been easily facilitated by carrying out a visit sooner and it was therefore unreasonable to wait three months to do so. It is further noted that it had still not carried out a visit by May 2022 and was again discussing the option of visiting at its case meeting of 3 May 2022.
In May 2022, the landlord offered mediation to the resident, some five months after her initial complaint. Although this was in line with its policy, it was unreasonable to offer it five months after the initial complaint. This service’s spotlight report on noise complaints highlights mediation as a useful tool in trying to help neighbours reach an understanding. However, this should be offered in the initial stages of the complaints. Offering it too late in the process can mean the situation has progressed too far for it to be appropriate.
The landlord demonstrated it took steps to try and resolve the problem. It had discussed housing options available to the neighbour however it was clear that this would not happen in the short term. It was reasonable of the landlord not to offer a timescale of a move to the resident as it would be unrealistic given the limited housing stock available in the social housing sector.
It acted reasonably by offering to provide fitted carpets to the neighbour which might have assisted in mitigating some of the noise interference, offering some short-term respite to the resident. Unfortunately, this offer was not taken up by the neighbour and the landlord had no powers to enforce this upon her.
In addition, it acted in line with its policy by suggesting a referral to social services and offering to work with other support agencies.
In July 2022 it carried out an inspection to assess the possibilities of installing sound proofing and separate front doors which was reasonable. It said it would not install soundproofing or separate the front doors as this would be considered an improvement rather than a repair. Although sound proofing may be a quicker resolution than moving the neighbour, the landlord is entitled to make such a decision which may have wider financial implications.
The landlord repeatedly said it would keep the resident up to date with her case, but it failed to do so. It is evidenced that the resident chased matters on numerous occasions with no meaningful response provided to her. This is both unfair and not appropriate as the lack of communication is conflicting with its ASB policy which says it will keep in regular contact with the complainant.
In its third response the landlord offered £400 (£50 a month for eight months) for distress and inconvenience. It is unclear if this is in relation to the noise complaint, repair issue or both. In absence of a full breakdown of this calculation by the landlord, this service has presumed the £400 was awarded for distress and inconvenience relating to its response to the noise complaint.
In summary it took the landlord five months to take any action in relation to the resident’s complaint of noise from her upstairs neighbour. It was not proactive in approaching and engaging with the neighbour despite the resident having made numerous reports. In addition to this it failed to draw up any action plan on how to deal with the situation, especially given it was aware of the sensitive nature of the complaint.
However, it attempted to put things right by awarding the resident £400 compensation for its response in dealing with her noise complaint, made referrals to other agencies that may have been in a better position to help and offered to provide carpet to the neighbour to help mitigate some of the noise.
A total award of £400 compensation was offered to the resident for its response to the resident noise complaint, which is considered reasonable redress for the service failure. The Ombudsman would have made a finding of some level of maladministration was it not for these steps the landlord took to put things right, by accepting its failing and offering reasonable compensation.

The landlord’s response to outstanding repairs following a leak.

The evidence shows that the resident reported five separate leaks coming from the flat above her, over a period of six months.
On 12, 18 and 22 November 2021 the resident used the landlord’s out of hours service to report she was experiencing water ingress from the flat above affecting her electrics. The landlord responded the same day to these reports by making it safe and reinstating the electrical supply. This was appropriate and within the parameters of its repairs policy which says the out of hours service is to “make safe” and lower the immediate risk and emergency repairs are to be carried out within 24 hours.
On 23 November 2021, a further report was logged detailing “no power to the bathroom and the pullcord not working”. It also noted that the bathroom had no natural lighting. Although it attended the same day this issue was not resolved for a further three days, leaving the resident with no lighting. This would have caused the resident inconvenience made worse by the fact there were no windows for natural light. The landlord could have considered steps to alleviate the inconvenience caused to the resident by providing temporary lighting or prioritising the bathroom light repair.
The resident reported another leak on 3 May 2022 which was tripping out her electrics and affecting her bathroom light which was not working. The landlord attended the same day to make the area safe, however the bathroom pull cord could not be repaired at that time. This was due to the ceiling being too damaged for a new pull cord to be installed. The repair log notes said that an external (outside of the bathroom) light switch with trunking needed to be installed. This works order is evidenced as completed on 10 June 2022.
This meant that the resident was without lighting in her bathroom for 38 days. This would have significantly inconvenienced the resident and was unfair given the previous delay she experienced in the bathroom light repair.
On 20 July 2022, the landlord carried out an inspection of both properties, identifying works that the resident had concerns about. This mainly concerned redecoration works following the bathroom repairs and water damage from the leaks. The repair log shows the works detailed in the resident’s escalation request of 23 May 2022 as still outstanding. It is noted that the repair policy says it will only redecorate following a repair where it has an obligation or in exceptional circumstances entirely at its discretion.
Although its repairs policy says it will not carry out redecoration works and any such works will be at its discretion; the landlord had confirmed it would paint the bathroom and kitchen ceiling, in addition to the attached panelling and carry out its obligated repairs by the plastering the bathroom ceiling and the hairline crack in the resident’s bedroom. It also awarded the resident £250 for the delay in getting the bathroom light repaired. This was resolution focused and in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes which has been assessed later in the report.
The resident said that due to work commitments she could not be available at short notice for works to be carried out, equally she was unhappy at being offered appointments three to four months in advance which is understandable. When booking the appointments, the landlord did not contact the resident via telephone as she requested which was unreasonable.
It has been evidenced that there had been difficulty in arranging a mutually agreeable time. Nevertheless, despite agreeing to carry out the redecoration, the works have been outstanding since September 2022. This is unreasonable and the landlord should have made particular effort to agree a suitable time by the preferred method of contact stated by the resident.
The resident experienced significant inconvenience and distress with the delay in reinstating her bathroom lighting on two separate occasions. In May 2022, the landlord should have been proactive in facilitating the repair to the bathroom lighting quickly, especially considering this was not the first delay experienced by the resident in a matter of months.
In accordance with the Housing Health and Safety rating systems inadequate lighting, both the lack of natural or artificial can increase the likelihood of a fall. Landlords have a responsibility to ensure their properties are free from hazards, and in this case the hazard of falls associated with baths.
Despite the resident raising the issue of the reoccurring leaks on several occasions and asking what the landlord intended to do, there was no evidence to suggest it had discussed the problem with the neighbour or offer advice to prevent it happening again. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident.
There was no evidence to suggest the landlord was at fault for the leaks therefore it was appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident to claim from her insurance regarding the damaged items following the leak. While the resident may be aggrieved that she had to pay the insurance excess when the leak and subsequent damage was not her fault, excess charges are a standard part of insurance policies. The landlord would only become responsible if it had failed in its repair obligation resulting in the cause of the leak. Furthermore, the landlord sort advice from its legal team to clarify matters which was reasonable.
In summary it’s clear the landlord had attempted to put things right by awarding the resident £250for the delay in fixing the bathroom light and offering to redecorate following the repairs works. However, the redecoration works remain outstanding and the issue was ongoing over a considerable period of time; some 38 days without lighting. There were five leaks occurring within six months, with no meaningful investigation as to the cause or discussion with the neighbour regarding the issue. It also failed to contact the resident via her preferred method of contact, despite her requests to do so.
Therefore, in recognition of the distress and prolonged inconvenience experienced by resident in getting the matter resolved and the outstanding redecoration, compensation of £250 has been awarded. This is in addition to the £250 previously offered by the landlord for the delay in fixing the bathroom light.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy operates a two-stage process. It says that stage one responses will be sent within 10 working days and stage two responses sent within 20 working days. It says that someone not involved at stage one will carry out a review of the complaint at stage two.
In this case the landlord sent three complaint responses on 3 May 2022, 1 July 2022, and 7 July 2022. The responses were titled making reference to stage one and two of the process, however its letter of 7 July 2022 made no reference to the complaint stage. Given that a stage three process is not laid out within its policy, it’s clear it did not follow its complaints policy or the complaint handling code.
Despite the introduction of a third response not being appropriate, the response did provide the resident with more details of its actions, accepted its failures and awarded further compensation. Learning from outcomes is a key part of complaint handling and emphasised in the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles’.
The resident raised her stage one complaint on 13 April 2022, with the landlord responding 12 working days later on 3 May 2022 and her stage two on 23 May 2022 with it responding 27 days later. Although the stage one was only two days out of its timeframe and the stage two was seven days late, this meant that both complaint responses were delayed. It did not adhere to the timescales set out in its formal complaints procedure and that of the complaints handling code which was not appropriate.
However, the landlord accepted that its stage one response did not deal with all of the issues the resident raised and awarded £130 compensation for its service failure. It offered a further £100 at its stage two for the delay, inconvenience, time, and effort the resident experienced in pursuing the complaint. The third response awarded a further £20 for the delay.
Overall, a total award of £250 compensation was offered to the resident for its complaints handling which is considered reasonable redress for the complaint handling failure. The Ombudsman would have made a finding of some level of maladministration was it not for these steps the landlord took to put things right, by accepting its failing, apologising, and offering reasonable compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure for the delay in dealing with the repairs and the outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress in its:
1. Response to the residents reports of noise from her upstairs neighbour.
2. Complaints handling failure.

Reasons

It took the landlord five months to take any action in relation to the resident’s complaint of noise from her upstairs neighbour. It was not proactive in approaching and engaging with the neighbour despite the resident having made numerous reports. In addition to this it failed to draw up any action plan on how to deal with the situation, especially given it was aware of the sensitive nature of the complaint. However, it demonstrates it took steps to address the problem and awarded compensation. The landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The resident was without lighting in her bathroom for 38 days. This would have significantly inconvenienced the resident and was unfair given the previous delay she experienced in the bathroom light repair. Furthermore, it confirmed it would carry out the redecoration work following the leaks, but this work remains outstanding.
There was a delay to both the stage one and stage two responses which did not fully address the residents’ concerns. Nevertheless, its third response did provide the resident with more details of its actions, accepted its failures, and awarded further compensation. The landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.

Orders

102. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £1150 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, consisting of:

1. 1. 1. 1. The £900 previously offered to the resident, which is outlined above.
    2. An additional £250 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay in dealing with the repairs and the outstanding repairs.
    3. The amount can be reduced by any compensation already paid.
103. Familiarise itself with this service spotlight report on noise complaints. As previously referenced, this service spotlight report on noise complaints offers insight and recommendations that would have been useful in this case. Particularly those around mediation, allocations, flooring, and triaging. Give consideration to producing a separate noise complaint policy,
incorporating the recommendations in the spotlight report.

104. Within 4 weeks of this determination confirm to this service that the following works have been completed:

a. Repair the hole in the bathroom ceiling and paint it.

b. Stain block and paint the kitchen ceiling, touching up paintwork to the panelling.

c. Repair the crack to her bedroom wall.