London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202117601)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117601

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

24 November 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about an external light being connected to her electricity supply.
3. Response to the outstanding repairs and the windows obstructing the gate when opened.
4. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident has advised this Service that there are outstanding repairs in the property and issues with opening her windows. The resident has commenced legal proceedings in relation to these matters. Under section 41 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service cannot consider a complaint about matters which are the subject of court proceedings. The aspects of the resident’s complaint relating to the outstanding repairs and the opening of the windows are outside of the jurisdiction of this Service and do not form part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy at the property which is a basement flat in a converted house. She has lived there since 2017 with her son who was around 6 years old at the time of the events being considered. The resident has a social worker. There are two other flats in the building and prior to the summer of 2021 the three properties shared a communal garden which was outlined in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy states as follows:
1. It will take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to deal with ASB and will work with relevant partners to meet its responsibilities.
2. Residents must acknowledge that day to day activities, such as noise or minor disturbances cannot be avoided, and accept that sometimes, while the behaviour of another family is frustrating it is not reasonable to place restrictions on their usual enjoyment of their home.
3. In cases of serious crime it will usually require the reporting party to report the incident to the police before it can carry out further action.
4. It does not normally consider the following to be ASB:
  1. Noise caused by people going about their daily lives.
  2. Minor personal differences, fall outs or disputes between neighbours.
5. Non-ASB will be logged and recorded and no further action taken. Potential solutions may still be offered where appropriate.
The Housing Ombudsman published a spotlight report on noise complaints in October 2022 (after the events being considered in this case) which stated as follows:
1. Most noise reports concern household noise rather than ASB. To handle noise reports that do not meet the statutory threshold, landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy, distinct to its ASB policy, with options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships, including via mediation.
2. Landlords should update their void standard to ensure that:
  1. Carpets are not removed unless they are in a poor state of repair.
  2. Hard flooring is removed when there have been reports of noise linked to the property.
  3. New tenancy agreements for flats with other homes below should include clauses that hard flooring is not permitted.
  4. For existing tenancy agreements where hard flooring is only permitted with permission and/or with conditions, (such as appropriate underlay or that permission will be rescinded if a noise report is made), if a noise report is made, those clauses should be inspected against and enforced.
  5. Anti-vibration mats are fitted into the washing machine space as standard.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that for routine day to day repairs, it will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient time.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. At stage 1, it will respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. At either stage if it cannot meet that timeframe, it will contact the resident to explain why within 10 working days.

Summary of events

On 13 March 2020 the resident advised the landlord that she could hear her new upstairs neighbour walking around and dropping items on the floor. The landlord advised her to introduce herself and explain about the noise transference which she agreed to do.
The following month (13 April 2020) the resident called the landlord to report that her upstairs neighbour was making loud noises and shouting in the night. There is also an internal note from the landlord that the resident made a report to the police of the neighbour being racist around the same time. The landlord confirmed on 22 April 2020 that it had opened a noise disturbance case and it was waiting for an update from the police about the incident. It explained that the neighbour was permitted to use the communal garden.
On 22 June 2020 the landlord advised the resident that her neighbour had declined to attend a meeting with the resident’s social worker but that the neighbour would take part in mediation. The landlord stated that it had made a referral for mediation to take place once the COVID-19 restrictions had been lifted. The resident reported further noise from her neighbour in July 2020. The mediator visited both parties on 21 July 2020 and both agreed to attend mediation.
The following day (22 July 2020) the resident submitted a complaint about the noise and that she could hear shouting, banging and stamping. She also explained that there were noises throughout the night which would cause her and her son to be “jumping” out of sleep. She advised that it was impacting her and her son’s health. The landlord called the resident to discuss this on 29 July 2020 and asked her to provide the recordings of the noise. The landlord spoke to the neighbour and subsequently advised the resident that the neighbour had agreed to move her bed and would lay rugs in the property.
The resident reported to the landlord on 20 August 2020 that her neighbour had been filming her on her phone. That same day the landlord sent her diary sheets to record any instances of ASB. The resident subsequently advised on 25 August 2020 that the noise was getting worse. The landlord wrote to the neighbour and visited the resident on 3 September 2020. It listened to the noise recordings and noted internally that some noise was noticeable.
The resident advised the landlord on 14 September 2020 that the neighbours were taking photos of her, had threatened her and that she could hear electrical vibrations at night. The landlord advised the resident to report the threat to the police and said it would speak to the neighbour. The resident subsequently submitted a complaint about the noise and behaviour of her neighbour on 16 September 2020. The landlord acknowledged this the same day.
On 17 September 2020 the landlord noted internally that it had changed the lock on the garden gate (in order to provide keys to both neighbours) which had resulted in the resident making accusations about her neighbour and becoming “irate”. It noted that she had involved the police but that the only recording of the incident showed the resident being the aggressor. It noted that it had spoken to the resident’s other neighbour who had supported the upstairs neighbour’s version of events. It noted internally that the only solution it could think of was to section off the shared garden. It also asked if the neighbour’s sound insulation could be increased.
On 22 September 2020 the resident advised the landlord that her neighbour had locked the garden gate and had locked her in deliberately. The landlord responded on 24 September 2020 and queried how the resident had been locked in when it had given her keys for the gate. The landlord also explained that it had visited the property to do a sound test but during the test the resident had advised that she had been unable to hear the noises made for the purpose of the test. The landlord did however confirm that the floorboards of the upstairs property were loose and it had asked for these to be repaired. It noted that the police had advised that there was no substantial evidence to support the resident’s claim of the neighbour using racist language.
The resident made further reports that her neighbour was making noise and filming her in October 2020 and stated that she had reported the neighbour to the police for threatening her.
On 2 November 2020 the landlord visited the resident to try to witness the noise. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what the outcome of this was.
The resident reported that the noise was getting worse in November 2020 and that she had reported another incident to the police. The landlord stated that it would need evidence to support her claims and advised her to compete the diary sheets and to send in recordings. The resident subsequently reported similar incidents in December 2020 and January 2021 and provided recordings.
On 28 January 2021 the landlord noted internally that it had arranged a joint visit with the police to the resident and the neighbour to try to resolve the issues. Following this another noise test was conducted at the property on 5 February 2021 and mediation took place that same day. The landlord noted that the meeting had to end as the residents had been unable to listen to each other. It noted that it had been suggested that the parties sign a good neighbour agreement and that it was liaising with a surveyor about separating the garden.
That same day the resident submitted a complaint about the landlord’s handing of the noise. She requested that noise monitoring take place and for her ceiling to be sound proofed. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 February 2021. The resident reiterated her concerns on 25 February 2021 and stated that the neighbour had put a bin outside her property. The landlord subsequently wrote to all residents reminding them not to cause obstructions with bins.
On 16 March 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour had assaulted her and that she had informed the police. The landlord spoke to the resident on 22 March 2021 who reported that the neighbour stamped every few minutes throughout the night. Her son no longer wanted to stay at the property and was staying with his grandmother. She explained that she did not want the garden to be fenced off as it would impact the light and the wildlife. The landlord explained that all residents were able to use the garden. It discussed an action plan with the resident and said it would request disclosure from the police.
On 23 March 2021 the resident submitted a complaint and reiterated that she did not want the garden to be divided and requested that it be assigned for her sole use. She stated that the case about the noise had been closed down following mediation even though it was ongoing.
On 31 March 2021 the resident called the landlord to report that her neighbour was doing “witchcraft”. The landlord discussed this with the resident who then advised that she had heard her neighbour running, banging and dropping items in the night.
On 12 April 2021 the landlord advised that, following police advice, it would be putting together a good neighbour agreement for the resident and her neighbours to sign.
The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 19 April 2021 and reiterated the resident’s complaint and stated that the resident was paying electricity for an external light. The landlord responded on 27 April 2021 and said as follows:
1. The garden was shared but the resident’s actions had made others feel unable to use it, it would therefore be divided. This would not impact the natural habitat.
2. There was a security light by the resident’s door which was connected to her electricity supply. She could turn this off if she chose to.
3. It had liaised with the police about the ongoing dispute and the police were investigating reports from both parties. Mediation had taken place but had ended without a resolution. The landlord was working with the police to draft a good neighbour agreement.
On 28 April 2021 the landlord responded to the residents complaint of 23 March 2021 at stage 1 and reiterated what it had advised her MP.
The resident provided further noise recordings in May 2021. The landlord spoke to the neighbour and asked her to be mindful of the noise transference. The neighbour explained that she believed the noise was from the property above.
On 21 May 2021 the landlord advised the resident that the work to the neighbours floorboards had been delayed. It confirmed that both neighbours had signed the good neighbour agreement and it asked if she would be doing so.
The resident reported further matters to the landlord in June 2021 including noise from the neighbour’s washing machine. The landlord noted internally that it had heard a recording of the washing machine at 6:30am. The resident advised the landlord that she would be speaking to her MP about the good neighbour agreement in July 2021.
The landlord contacted the neighbour in June 2021 about noises which had been recorded between midnight and 4am and asked for her comments. The landlord advised the resident that the neighbour had said that she could also hear the noises and believed it was coming from the property next door or from a dehumidifier. The landlord reiterated that it would be fixing the floorboards to reduce the walking sounds.
Another incident was reported to the police on 2 July 2021. The landlord subsequently issued the resident with a formal warning about her behaviour.
That same day the resident submitted a complaint and reiterated her concerns about the garden being divided and paying for the security light. She said the case about her neighbour kept being closed down without the matter being resolved. She made a further complaint on 5 July 2021 and said as follows:
1. The neighbour had pretended to water her plants but had got water on her.
2. The landlord had not treated her fairly by giving her a formal warning.
3. Her child had been referred to safeguarding as he was often late for school due to being unable to sleep.
4. She asked for the neighbour to be moved out of the property.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service who asked the landlord to respond to the complaint.
On 14 July 2021 the resident requested that her complaint (from 23 March 2021) be escalated to stage 2.
On 19 July 2021 the landlord responded at stage 1 to the resident’s complaint from 1 July 2021 and said as follows:
1. It had made another referral for mediation.
2. It had suggested the parties sign a good neighbour agreement, however the resident had declined to do so until she spoke to her MP.
3. It reiterated that the garden was communal and that it hoped that separating it would help resolve matters.
4. In relation to the resident paying for electricity for the external light, the landlord offered her £20 annually for this.
On 29 July 2021 the landlord made an internal note that the shed had been condemned by its surveyor. It had given the resident three weeks to remove her items from it. It noted that it had spoken to the neighbour about the noise recordings and she had advised that the recording was of her packing to leave the property.
On 12 August 2021 the landlord sent a response to the complaint made on 1 July 2021. It noted that the resident had asked for it to respond to at stage 2 but it needed to respond at stage 1 before it could do so. The stage 1 response said as follows:
1. It reiterated that the garden was shared and would be sectioned off.
2. It had carried out an inspection of the loose floorboards however the repairs had not been completed as only emergency repairs were being completed during the COVID-19 restrictions. It has asked for this to be done as soon as possible.
3. It had listened to the recordings which were of household noise. It acknowledged the noise was exacerbated by the loose floorboards. It had spoken to the neighbour about being mindful about when her dehumidifier was running.
4. The ASB case had been ongoing since March 2020 and had been reopened whenever a new report was received. The latest report was being investigated by the police.
5. It had spoken to the neighbour about the washing machine and the resident had since informed the landlord that this had been resolved.
6. In terms of alleged racism, harassment and noise nuisance, there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations.
7. It was satisfied that it had managed the case in accordance with its procedures and had exhausted all interventions available to try to seek a mutually agreed solution.
The resident escalated this complaint to stage 2 on 10 September 2021 and said that the matter was seriously effecting her and her son’s health and safety. She disagreed that the floorboards were an issue.
The landlord informed the resident that the works to the garden would begin on 13 September 2021. It noted that the resident had not removed her items from the shed and that a lock had been installed without its permission. The resident responded the same day and said as follows:
1. She had spent a lot of money on items for the shed.
2. She was paying for the security light and questioned why work to the garden was commencing when this had not been resolved.
3. The landlord was taking the neighbours side and was discriminating against her.
4. She asked the landlord to promise her that the neighbours would not lock the gate.
The landlord responded the following day and stated that it had not taken sides but had acted on the evidence seen which included recordings of the resident approaching the neighbour and appearing argumentative.
On 22 September 2021 the resident stated to the landlord that it had not helped her with the noise. The landlord responded the same day and stated that a number of her points were historical and had been addressed by the police. It asked her if she had any further noise issues as the last recording was from 14 September 2021. It stated that it would continue to investigate following the submission of recordings.
In November 2021 the resident contacted this Service who subsequently asked the landlord to confirm the position with the resident’s complaint. The landlord advised this Service that it could not find a record of the resident having escalated her complaint on 10 September 2021 as she had advised. It subsequently asked the resident for a copy of her escalation request. The resident provided this on 8 December 2021 and raised new aspects of complaint which do not form part of this investigation.
The landlord acknowledged this on 17 December 2021. It subsequently spoke to the resident on 6 January 2022 and advised that it required more time to respond. It provided the stage 2 response on 12 January 2022 and stated as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in the case being reviewed at Stage 2 and said this was due to an increased volume of work.
2. It had spoken to the resident who had indicated that her main concern was the level of compensation and that she had requested £8000 via her legal disrepair case. The landlord explained that as it was a legal matter it could not decide on this.
3. It had actively dealt with the resident’s reports of noise and ASB and mediation had been offered. It noted that the resident had not signed the good neighbour agreement.
4. It reiterated that the garden was shared and it had decided to section it off.
5. It had made arrangements for the resident to receive an annual payment of £20 for the garden lighting which it deemed fair and reasonable.
6. It acknowledged that the resident had had to chase the complaint several times and it acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience caused.
7. It offered a total of £190 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £40 for the late stage 2 review.
  2. £50 for the lack of communication.
  3. £100 for the resident’s time, effort, distress and inconvenience.
8. It signposted her to this Service.
The resident contacted her MP the following day and reiterated her points of complaint. She requested that the garden be allocated for her sole use or for it not to be divided. She stated that she wanted the neighbours spoken to about ASB and requested compensation between £8,000 – £15,000 (which included the repair issues being considered as part of the legal case).
On 18 January 2022 the resident submitted a complaint about the landlord’s stage 2 response and reiterated her points of complaint. She advised the landlord that this was a continuation of her compliant which had been considered at stage 2 and that she did not believe the landlord was investigating her complaints fairly. The landlord advised her on 28 January 2022 that recent noise recordings were of walking around the property above. It explained that this was classed as general household noise and the complaint was closed.
On 15 February 2022 the landlord noted internally that the resident had been calling everyday about the issues. The landlord emailed her on 16 February 2022 and said as follows:
1. It had advised that the garden was shared on a number of occasions.
2. It advised that if the resident wanted to move the best option would be for her to seek a mutual exchange.
On 10 March 2022 the landlord asked the neighbour if a contractor had looked at her floorboards and she advised this had not taken place. The landlord raised a job for this to be inspected.
On 3 May 2022 the police contacted the landlord and advised that it had spoken to the resident who reiterated her reports of noise and her unhappiness that the garden had been separated. The police advise the landlord of their concern that matters could start up again. The landlord advised that it had listened to the recordings and only walking could be heard.
On 5 May 2022 the police advised the landlord that the neighbour had made a report of the resident “barging” into their section of the garden during a BBQ and had removed the neighbours padlock from their gate. The police offered to attend the property when the landlord planned to remove the resident’s items from the shed in order to prevent a breach of the peace.
On 16 May 2022 the landlord replaced the floorboards in the neighbours property.
On 24 May 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it had listened to noise recordings and had asked a colleague for a second opinion. It concluded that the noises were household noises of voices and walking during the night and early hours. It advised that it could not hear the washing machine and that it would be closing the case. The resident responded the same day and advised that she wanted to make a complaint about how the case had been handled and that she was going to contact social services as her son could not sleep.
On 7 June 2022 the resident reported further noise from her neighbour which she said sounded like a bed being dropped on the floor which caused her son to have a panic attack. She advised she had kept diary sheets. The landlord called her the same day and encouraged her to complete the diary sheets and it arranged to visit her.
On 21 June 2022 the resident submitted another complaint and reiterated her concerns about her neighbour and suggested that she should put down carpet. She acknowledged that the landlord had discussed her moving but said she lived on her “dream road”.
On 27 July 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and noted that it had not received the completed diary sheets from her or any further recordings.
On 1 September 2022 the resident referred her case to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is apparent from the landlord’s records of correspondence that the resident submitted a number of complaints since 2020 regarding similar matters, some of which are still being considered via the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Under the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles landlords should be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to issues raised and try to put them right prior to the involvement of this Service. As the following aspects of complaint were not raised within the resident’s complaints being considered by this investigation and were brought to the landlord’s attention at a later stage, the landlord has not considered these at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure and as such they do not form part of this investigation:
1. The installation of a video doorbell for the resident.
2. Issues with the gate lock.
3. Damage to the garden and items missing from the garden.
4. The neighbour having a camera filming the garden.
5. Stolen bins.
6. Staff conduct.
As noted, the resident still has complaints which the landlord has yet to address at stage 2. Although a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to confirm to the resident, when she can expect to receive a response, the handling of these outstanding complaints does not form part of this investigation into the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident has said that she believes that the ASB and noise has impacted on her and her son’s health. Whilst this Service acknowledges the resident’s views, it is beyond the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to decide whether there was a direct link between any ASB or noise issues and the health of the resident or her son. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health or that of her son has been affected by any action or inaction of the landlord.
Whilst this investigation cannot decide on the causation of health conditions, it has considered if any general distress and inconvenience was caused to the resident as a result of errors by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance

The role of the Housing Ombudsman is not to decide if the actions complained of amounted to anti-social behaviour, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports reasonably and with reference to its published policies and procedures.
It is noted that there has been a very significant amount of correspondence between the resident and the landlord for a number of years. Whilst the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the reports is noted, this report will not be addressing each report of ASB or noise. It will instead focus on the landlord’s overall handling of the matters.
It is acknowledged by the landlord that, due to the type of property, there was noise transference from the property above. It is evident that this noise transference had caused distress to the resident and her son, particularly when such noises occurred at night.
When considering the landlord’s ASB policy, it is apparent that the incidents of noise reported by the resident of walking and banging would not fall within the landlord’s definition of ASB (as they were noises caused by people going about their daily lives) and therefore would not meet the threshold for an ASB investigation. Despite this, the landlord took into account the impact the noise was having on the resident and took steps to investigate the reports. This was an appropriate use of the landlord’s discretion and demonstrated that it was committed to a resident and solution focused approach.
In line with its ASB policy, the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to the police following her reports of racism and threats. In addition the landlord liaised with the police in respect of the allegations and counter allegations and demonstrated a solution-focused approach to try to resolve the ongoing dispute. Following confirmation from the police that there was not enough evidence to support the allegations the landlord nevertheless took steps to support the resident with her ongoing issues with her neighbour. Despite the spotlight report on ASB and noise complaints not having been published at the time, the landlord acted in a way which would later be encouraged within that spotlight report. The landlord took a number of appropriate and reasonable steps to support the resident as follows:
1. It arranged for mediation on two occasions.
2. It provided the resident with the noise app to record the noise.
3. It acted on police advice and asked the resident and neighbours to sign a good neighbour agreement.
4. It provided diary sheets to the resident for her to record incidents.
5. It undertook home visits to try to witness the sounds complained of.
6. It spoke to the neighbour about the noise transference who agreed to make adjustments including moving her bed and laying rugs.
7. It spoke to other neighbours about any known issues.
8. It enquired about increasing the sound insulation.
9. It conducted sound tests on two occasions, with the resident advising she could not hear the deliberate sounds during these.
10. It identified issues with the floorboards in the neighbours property.
11. It discussed with the resident options of her moving property.
12. It put together an action plan (although this was not shared with this Service).
In addition to the steps taken above, the landlord sectioned off the communal garden as a way to ty to resolve the conflict. This was a reasonable and proportionate step to take given the resident’s apparent unwillingness to accept that the garden was for the use of all residents in the block and to try to address the issue. Although the resident was opposed to this course of action, it was a reasonable step for the landlord to have taken and showed that it had considered all of its tenants in its solution focused approach.
Although as stated above the landlord was proactive in the actions it took to try to address the noise reports, it identified the floorboards as contributing to the noise in September 2020 but did not repair them until May 2022, 20 months later. It is acknowledged that there was a delay caused by the national COVID-19 restrictions however the landlord should have expedited this repair given the impact it was having on the resident. The landlord did not provide any explanation to the resident or this Service for this delay of 20 months which was not a reasonable timeframe for the repair.
There is no mention in the resident’s tenancy agreement whether the landlord permits the properties in the block to have wooden flooring. The neighbour agreed to put down rugs to try to reduce the noise transference but there is no evidence that the landlord acted on the resident’s suggestion that carpets be fitted in the neighbours property. This is something which the landlord could have spoken to the neighbour about and considered as a means to reduce the noise transference following the resident’s suggestion. This is something which was has since been highlighted in the Ombudsman’s October 2022 spotlight report which encourages landlord’s to consider fitting carpets following reports of noise nuisance. A recommendation has been made in respect of this below.
Whilst the landlord took appropriate action in responding to the residents reports of noise, it should have been proactive in ensuring that the loose floorboards were fixed in a timely manner, especially in light of the ongoing reports of noise and the impact to the resident. The delay in carrying out this repair was not reasonable. Whilst the landlord was not under any obligation to carpet the property above the resident it should have responded to the resident’s suggestion of this as a solution to clarify whether this was something it could consider. As such there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the reports of noise nuisance. To acknowledge the impact of this on the resident, compensation of £200 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for when there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.

The resident’s concerns about an external light being connected to her electricity supply

The landlord appropriately advised the resident that the external light in front of her door was to provide light for her to be able to safely enter and exit her property. Following the resident’s concerns that her neighbours were benefitting from the light, despite not paying towards it, the landlord explained to the resident that she was able to switch the light off if she did not want use of it. In addition, it offered the resident an annual payment towards her electricity costs of £20 per year. This was a reasonable offer and the landlord appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns about this light. As such there was no maladministration.

Complaint handling

The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the noise on 5 February 2021. Although the landlord acknowledged this complaint this Service has not seen any evidence that it was responded to at stage 1. This was not appropriate and was not in line with the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident subsequently submitted another complaint about how the landlord was responding to the noise from her neighbour on 23 March 2021. The landlord responded to this compliant at stage 1 on 27 April 2021. This timeframe of 24 working days exceeded the stage 1 response timeframe in the landlord’s complaints policy of 10 working days. There is no evidence that the landlord had advised the resident that it would need more time to respond at stage 1.
The resident submitted another complaint about her neighbour and the separation of the garden on 1 July 2021 and the landlord responded on 19 July 2021, 13 working days later.
Prior to the stage 1 response being provided for the complaint from 1 July 2021, the resident requested that both complaints be escalated to stage 2 (on 14 July 2021). The landlord advised that it needed to respond to the complaint at stage 1 before I could do so. Whilst this was correct for the complaint from 1 July 2021, the landlord should have escalated the complaint from 23 March 2021 as it had already provided the stage 1 response. The landlord’s lack of clarity in which complaint it was referring to led to confusion for the resident.
Following the escalation request, the landlord should have escalated the complaint from 23 March 2021 to stage 2. As it did not do so, the resident made another escalation request on 10 September 2021 and then again, following the involvement of this Service, on 8 December 2021. It was not until the involvement of this Service that the landlord considered the escalation request. It is noted that the landlord had advised this Service that it could not find a record of the request from 10 September 2021.
The landlord subsequently combined the complaints and addressed both within its stage 2 response from 12 January 2022, this being around 4 months after the initial escalation request was made. It is noted that it took the landlord almost a year to complete the internal complaints procedure. This timeframe was not reasonable.
The landlord acknowledged its delay in responding at stage 2, apologised and offered a total of £190 compensation for the delay, lack of communication and distress and inconvenience. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation it did not acknowledge that the resident had initially raised the complaint in Janaury 2021 but it did not respond. As a result of the landlord’s failings the internal complaints procedure took almost a year This was not reasonable and exacerbated the resident’s frustration further. The landlord should have provided an opportunity for resolution or for the resident to bring the complaint to this Service earlier. Compensation of £250 has been ordered in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where there has been a service failure which adversely affected the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about an external light being connected to her electricity supply.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s response to the outstanding repairs and the windows obstructing the gate when opened is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord was not proactive in ensuring that the loose floorboards which had been identified as contributing to the noise transference, were repaired within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord did not investigate the resident’s suggestion that carpet be laid in the upstairs property.
The landlord offered to pay £20 per year towards the resident’s electricity bill to cover the use if the external light which was appropriate and reasonable.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial complaint. There was a subsequent delay in the landlord responding at stage 2 and it did not do so until the involvement of this Service. Its offer of an apology and £190 compensation did not acknowledge its failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint or the impact of the complaints process taking almost 12 months on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £450 compensation made up as follows:
3. £200 to acknowledge the impact of not carrying out the repairs to the floorboards within a reasonable timeframe.
4. £250 to acknowledge the impact of the complaint handling failures. This takes into account the £190 already offered by the landlord. If £190 has already been paid to the resident then this does not need to be paid again, only the difference of £60.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider the option of carpeting the upstairs neighbours property and let the resident know the outcome of this.
It is recommended that the landlord confirm the resident when she can expect her outstanding complaints to be responded to.