London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202206602)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206602

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

19 December 2023 (amended at review)

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 response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbances.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a two bedroom flat on the first floor of a building managed by the landlord. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Policies

The tenancy agreement says a resident is not to cause excessive noise in a manner as to cause a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours.
In relation to animals, the tenancy agreement says a resident is not to keep an animal at the property without first obtaining the landlord’s written consent. It explains that the granting or refusal of such consent is at the landlord’s discretion and that such consent may be withdrawn at any time especially if the animal causes a nuisance to neighbours.
The landlord’s pets policy from October 2015 explains that pets may only be kept after obtaining the express written permission of the landlord. Whilst it says granting or refusing consent is at the landlord’s “absolute discretion” it does say that retrospective permission can be sought. The policy adds that dogs are not permitted in any flat or property with shared access. But explains that in exceptional circumstances it may be appropriate to approve a pet request outside of its normal policy.
The landlord’s pets policy from January 2020 says that a tenant must apply for permission to keep pets and that such permission would not be unreasonably withheld. It also explains how retrospective permission can be sought. The policy explains how nuisance from pets can manifest as noise and where a pet is causing a nuisance to other residents it will investigate this in line with its anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy and procedures.
The landlord’s ASB policy explains that where noise is persistent, deliberate or targeted it would be recorded as ASB. However, it says it will not consider noise caused by people going about their daily lives. The ASB policy defines subcategories for deliberate noise and pet nuisances.
The Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight on noise: time to be heard” says that:
1. Noise transference is often treated through the lens of ASB by landlords. However, this can be unfair for both the complainant and the complained about.
2. Some good practices from landlords include updated void standards to ensure that hard flooring is removed when there have been reports of noise linked to the property.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its two stage complaints process. It defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by it or those acting on its behalf. The complaints policy confirms that a stage one complaint will be responded to in writing within 10 working days and a stage two complaint will be responded to within 20 working days. The complaints policy says that if the landlord cannot meet either of these timeframes, it will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days.

Summary of events

On 19 December 2011 the resident asked the landlord about laminate flooring and said she did not think her upstairs neighbour should have it in their property. She was told to discuss this further with her neighbourhood manager at that time.
The landlord’s activity log shows that on 2 June 2015 the resident told it that laminate flooring had been installed in the property above hers and that she was concerned about the noise.
A further note from 14 April 2016 says the resident requested the email address for the landlord’s CEO and she told it that her concerns related to an ASB issue that her neighbourhood manager was dealing with. At this time the landlord noted the resident “sent in a letter of complaint” expressing her unhappiness about laminate flooring at the property above hers. This Service has not been provided with a copy of this letter.
Following this the landlord’s activity log records several calls from the resident between June and October 2016. It is unclear what happened at this time in relation to the resident’s complaint from April 2016.
On 26 February 2019 the resident raised a complaint and referred to a previous complaint from 27 March 2018. This Service has not seen a copy of the complaint from 27 March 2018. However, in her complaint from 26 February 2019 the resident said:
1. Her situation remained the same and she had been sleeping in her living room due to the noise.
2. She detailed the impact of noise from the flooring and the dog barking.
3. She had made a number of complaints to no avail and detailed her experiences of her complaints being ignored.
4. She detailed the impact the noise was having on her.
5. She told the landlord that it had not followed its policies and procedure or dealt with her matter fairly or equally.
In May 2019 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord about the resident’s concerns and the impact the situation was having on her.
On 6 June 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and said she had not been able to live peacefully in her home for four years. She said:
1. She had complained about the matter for four years and that her complaints had been redirected to the housing officer and the issues had not been addressed. She said the landlord had obstructed her attempts to make a complaint.
2. The landlord had not adhered to its own policies or made appropriate enquiries. She said the housing officer had made biased decisions in favour of another tenant in particular in saying that the dog that lived at the property above did not bark.
3. She complained of the landlord’s failure to take appropriate action to remove the dog.
4. She said as a result of the ongoing situation she had developed anxiety and had been referred for psychotherapy.
5. She had told the landlord that she was sleeping in her living room.
On the 11 June 2019 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her complaint. It said it would look into the issue raised and contact her to discuss the concerns in more detail before concluding its investigation.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 19 June 2019 to discuss her complaint. The resident told it she had not slept in her bedroom for four years following the installation of laminate flooring in the upstairs property. The landlord agreed to test the soundproofing at the resident’s property to establish if there was an underlying issue causing the transference of noise.
On 15 April 2020 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord again about the ongoing issue previously reported in May 2019. The MP told the landlord that it had failed to respond to her previous contact and that the issue remained the same. The MP explained the resident’s concerns as:
1. The noise from the neighbour’s dog meant she could not sleep in her bedroom.
2. The issue had been ongoing for four years and was impacting the resident’s wellbeing and mental health.
3. She wanted the landlord to support the neighbour with better soundproofing.
On 20 April 2020 the landlord responded to the MP. It said:
1. It had no record of the resident raising ASB concerns about noise or pet nuisance.
2. Due to the self-isolating rules in place at that time residents were asked to be mindful that there might be higher levels of noise due to being asked to stay at home.
3. The resident should contact it to report ASB concerns so that it could investigate.
On 24 February 2021 the resident, with the assistance of her MP, raised her complaint and said:
1. There was noise from laminate flooring coming from the property above hers.
2. There was also noise and nuisance from a dog at the neighbour’s property.
3. The issues had been ongoing for five years and efforts to complain through the landlord’s complaints process had been blocked by its staff.
4. The landlord’s staff falsely reported that there was no noise and it did not investigate the issue. She said it falsely said there was floor underlay in the property above.
5. The landlord’s staff handled her complaints in a biased manner.
6. The resident informed the landlord of the impact of the issues on her health.
On 2 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP and said:
1. The resident had no historic or active ASB cases and that it had made a request for a case to be opened immediately.
2. It said a case manager would contact the resident within 24 hours.
3. It apologised that the MP had to contact it again.
The landlord’s letter from 2 March 2021 appears to have been its stage one complaint response. On the same day the landlord raised an ASB case for the resident.
Following this, between March and April 2021 the landlord tried to contact the resident about her ASB complaint. The landlord had no success in its attempts to contact the resident by phone or email during this time.
On 30 May 2021 the resident told the landlord that she had been away due to personal matters. She said that it should have contacted her MP as she had made her aware that she was away.
The following day the resident asked the landlord if it had contacted her MP and referred the landlord to her previous letter of complaint.
On 8 June 2021 the landlord’s note said that it was going to install carpet at the neighbour’s property in attempts to reduce noise and resolve the issue.
An internal email from 10 June 2021 shows the landlord tried to establish whether the complaint should be treated as an ASB issue, this email said that the resident had confirmed that the complaint was not about the neighbour.
On 16 June 2021 the resident told the landlord that she did not have the capacity to deal with the matter and said her GP and physiotherapist were aware of the impact of the situation on her health.
On 23 June 2021 the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint and said she did not want to discuss her complaint over the phone and wanted a response in writing. Its email said the resident did not consider the issue as an ASB issue but more about the laminate flooring. The landlord was to consider an action plan and timescales at that time.
On 14 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to chase her request for the report following the landlord’s previous visit.
On 19 July 2021 the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. Her complaint was dated 24 February 2021 and not 17 June 2021.
2. That she was not willing to discuss her complaint over the phone.
3. The noise was a result of laminate flooring being installed which was against the landlord’s policy and tenancy agreement.
4. She did not consider the noise as deliberate and instead her complaint was about the landlord’s failure to adhere to its own policy.
5. The landlord was incorrect to say the case had been ongoing for three months when the resident had been complaining for six years. She said how she felt that her complaint would have been ignored had her MP not sent it on her behalf.
6. The landlord said an ASB case was opened on 3 March 2021 but it took no action other than try to contact her when the issues were clear.
7. The landlord failed to provide a timescale to address the noise issue.
8. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property with no equipment and did not carry out an inspection of the property. She said he falsely reported that he looked over the property and there was no noise.
9. She had requested a copy of the surveyor’s report but had not received it.
10. The landlord had accepted information from the neighbour without verification. She said the neighbour had breached its tenancy agreement and the landlord had not adhered to its own policy.
11. She told the landlord that she had been suffering with anxiety, high blood pressure and suicidal ideas as a result of the issue going on for six years.
12. The landlord had not addressed all the issues raised in her complaint and requested it escalate the complaint to stage two of its process.
On 20 July 2021 the resident’s MP asked the landlord to raise a stage two complaint.
On 23 July 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response. It said:
1. It apologised for the resident’s experience.
2. It was working with the neighbour to resolve the noise she was experiencing as a result of laminate flooring. It said due to GDPR rules it was unable to provide further information on the actions it was taking to get the matter resolved.
3. It acknowledged the resident had contacted it over a number of years on multiple occasions about noise nuisance. It said each time a matter was raised it had investigated it and the matters had been closed.
4. It told the resident of the usual steps it took when receiving notification of ASB concerns. It said it made four attempts to contact the resident to discuss the concerns and that it needed to have contact with her to enable it to conduct its investigation. It said that this combined with the resident being out of the UK meant it had not been able to progress the matter until she had returned.
5. It clarified that the ASB case was not classed as a complaint and as such did not follow the complaints procedure. It said the matter was being managed with its ASB policy and procedure.
6. It acknowledged that the resident felt three months was not an acceptable time but said it was satisfied it had followed its ASB process. It said the three month timeframe was simply due to how long it took it to receive a response from the resident.
7. It further added that the resolution required input from multiple teams and as such it was unable to give a definitive timeframe for satisfactory resolution.
8. In response to the resident’s concerns about inequality and bias it said it could assure the resident that it works to provide a good and fair service to all residents. However, it apologised that the resident felt that she had not been treated fairly.
9. In response to the resident’s query about the dog, it said that it had added this detail to the ASB case for further investigation and said it would look into the issue and discuss it further with the neighbour.
10. It assured the resident that the case would be monitored closely until it could reach a resolution and she was able to have peaceful enjoyment of her home.
11. As a gesture of good will and to acknowledge the delays in progressing the case as well as the time and effort the resident put into the matter it awarded her £50 compensation.
On 16 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and apologised that she was experiencing noise nuisance from the neighbour. It said the agreed action points were:
1. For it to investigate the breach of tenancy as it would resolve the noise nuisance issue.
2. Its offer of mediation.
3. It would contact the resident within 28 days or when necessary to update on the progress of the case.
On 5 November 2021 the landlord’s notes show it spoke to the resident and was told that “things have gone quiet for the moment” but might change. The landlord told the resident about its change in policy to allow residents to have dogs.
On 16 December 2021 the resident spoke to the landlord to express her unhappiness about the situation remaining unresolved. The call note shows the landlord told the resident that it had decided the neighbour needed a dog and that a thick underlay carpet would be put down and it would continue to monitor the situation.
On 22 December 2021 the resident’s MP emailed the landlord and said:
1. It was sharing a letter of complaint on behalf of the resident.
2. It told the landlord that the resident was a vulnerable tenant whose mental health had been fragile at times.
The resident’s MP followed up on her previous email due to no response on 21 January 2022.
On 12 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to tell it she had been woken at 4.30am by the noise from the neighbour. She asked the landlord when it was going to act and expressed her frustration that the situation was still ongoing.
On 14 February 2022 the landlord apologised to the resident for the disturbances she had experienced. It said “unfortunately living in the block comes with its own noise issues as [it could] not stop residents from coming in and out of their flat or from carrying out their domestic chores.” However, it did explain that work was agreed to be completed in the upcoming days and how it hoped this would reduce the noise.
On 19 February 2022 the resident reported further disturbances from the property above.
On 22 February 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and apologised that she had to complain again. It told the resident that a date to fix the carpet had been delayed due to unforeseen circumstances and told the resident to start recording the noise nuisance in a diary sheet. It also told the resident that it could only act on persistent noise nuisance occurring between 11pm and 7am and that it would tell the resident if it was satisfied that the nuisance had intentionally been created to cause annoyance/nuisance.
The evidence shows that carpet was fitted at the neighbour’s property during this time and the landlord covered the costs of this.
On 13 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said:
1. She was struggling to respond to emails about the noise nuisance as she was distressed all the time.
2. It did not give a date by which the laminate flooring would be removed.
3. She said she was aware that living in blocks comes with its own noise.
4. She had previously told the landlord that the noise was not deliberate and that the landlord’s actions could cause tenant disputes which was not good.
5. She asked what the unforeseen circumstances were.
6. She asked what would happen if the neighbour did not comply and asked whether it would take legal action.
7. She asked how the landlord would deal with noise between 7am and 11pm.
On 26 March 2022 the landlord called the resident to find out whether the noise had reduced following the installation of carpet. The resident told it the noise transmission was the same. The resident repeated the concerns raised in her complaint and told the landlord of the impact it was having on her overall health.
On 31 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s CEO about her unresolved complaint. She told it that the complaint was raised in December 2021 and there had been no response or acknowledgement from the landlord. She said it had taken six and a half years for the landlord to agree there had been a breach in its tenancy agreement.
On 6 April 2022 the landlord’s internal emails show it acknowledged receiving an email from December 2021 but it had been missed due to staff leaving.
On 16 June 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident and its file note explains:
1. The resident was unhappy that the landlord did not enforce its own policies.
2. She said there was a dog in the flat above at a time when its policy did not allow for dogs.
3. It did not carry out a thorough inspection of the noise. The landlord failed to provide a copy of the report from its surveyor’s inspection.
4. The property above had laminate flooring and whilst the landlord was aware it did not enforce its own policy.
5. The landlord told the resident that there was thick underlay and carpet in the neighbour’s property. Vinyl flooring in the kitchen and bedroom. However, the resident did not believe this due to the ongoing noise.
6. The landlord agreed to review the noise issue and to review the history of the case. However, it said it might be unlikely that it would get to the bottom of why certain policies were not enforced or why certain decisions were made. It said certain colleagues had left and it could only rely on information held within the system.
7. The landlord said it discussed safeguarding with the resident.
It is important to explain that it is the Ombudsman’s role to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. Whilst the landlord issued its stage two response on 23 July 2021 the resident continued to raise the same concerns after this date and as such, where it is fair and appropriate to do so, those same concerns have been referred to within this report.

Assessment and findings

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

The landlord’s ASB policy defines persistent noise as a type of ASB. It says in the investigation and management of ASB it will keep in regular contact with the reporting party and agree an action plan and a prompt timeline for delivery.
The evidence shows the resident reported noise concerns relating to laminate flooring in June 2015. She then complained about the ongoing situation and the landlord’s lack of action on 14 April 2016, 26 February 2019 and 6 June 2019. There is no evidence to show the landlord took any action in relation to these concerns. This was not appropriate.
On 15 April 2020 the resident’s MP complained on her behalf, whilst the landlord responded to the MP it incorrectly said it had not been made aware of noise nuisance or ASB concerns before. The evidence shows it took no further action, which was not appropriate.
Following this the resident, with the assistance of her MP, complained about the same issues again on 24 February 2021. It was after this on 2 March 2021 that the landlord raised an ASB case. The landlord’s failure to take steps in line with its policy for almost six years was not appropriate.
It is understood that the landlord was unable to reach the resident between March 2021 and May 2021 and on 8 June 2021 it explained its agreed approach to resolve the ongoing noise issue was to install carpet at the neighbour’s property. Despite this, there is no evidence to show the landlord did what it said it would at that time. Instead, the resident escalated her complaint on 19 July 2021 and continued to tell the landlord of the impact the situation was having on her.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 23 July 2021 and said it was working with the neighbour to resolve the noise and said due to GDPR it was unable to share further detail on its actions. Whilst the landlord may have righty had some concerns about GDPR, its ASB policy explains it would keep in regular contact with the resident and agree an action plan with a prompt timeline for delivery. There is no evidence to show the landlord set a timeline for its planned actions at that time. The landlord’s failure to do this along with its failure to keep the resident updated with the installation of the carpet and adhere to its policy was not appropriate.
It is important to note that on 16 September 2021 the landlord told the resident it would investigate the laminate flooring issue as a breach of tenancy in its attempts to resolve the noise nuisance. In light of this, it is accepted that despite this Service not having sight of the tenancy agreement between it and the neighbour the landlord would have been reasonably aware of a possible tenancy breach. However, it took the landlord over six years to consider a possible tenancy breach, even though the resident highlighted this throughout her complaints. The landlord’s failure to investigate the neighbour’s flooring as a possible breach of tenancy for over six years was not appropriate.
In terms of the noise disturbances from the neighbour’s dog. The evidence shows the resident initially raised concerns about the dog barking in her complaint from 24 February 2019. The resident raised further concerns on 6 June 2019 about the landlord not taking appropriate action to remove the dog and similar concerns were repeated in her other complaints. The evidence shows the landlord did not acknowledge the dog concerns until its stage two response from 23 July 2021. This timeframe of 29 months to acknowledge the noise concerns about the dog was not appropriate.
The evidence shows that after its stage two response the landlord did engage with the resident on 5 November 2021 about the noise concerns and it was told “things have gone quiet for the moment” but might change. It was following this that it told the resident of its decision to allow the dog to remain at the neighbour’s property.
The tenancy agreement confirms it is the landlord’s discretion whether it allows a resident to keep an animal. The landlord’s pet policies from 2015 and 2020 both confirm the landlord’s discretion for allowing pets. Whilst it was in line with its policies for the landlord to apply its discretion in its decision about the neighbour’s dog, it should not have taken the landlord almost 29 months to acknowledge the noise nuisance from the dog. As such, the landlord’s actions here were not in line with its policy obligation and were not appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance was not appropriate and amount to maladministration. Despite the resident repeatedly raising noise concerns and complaints for almost six years the landlord delayed in applying the relevant aspects of its ASB policy. Once it did finally apply its ASB policy it failed to act in line with it or within a reasonable timeframe of it. The landlord also repeatedly missed opportunities to investigate the laminate flooring concerns as a possible breach of its tenancy agreement and it took it over six years to identify this avenue.
The landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance left the resident unaware of when the long-standing issues would be resolved and meant she had to continue to contact the landlord and involve her MP. The resident repeatedly told the landlord of the impact the noise was having on her health, where she slept in her home and the worry of the impact the events would have on her relationship with her neighbour which she was keen to maintain. The resident told the landlord of her concerns repeatedly over a significant period of time and it still took the landlord around six years to start taking meaningful action. As such it is accepted that the resident would have been impacted for a significant period of time by the failings identified.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The evidence shows the resident reported noise concerns in June 2015 and some further concerns were reported in April 2016. It is acknowledged that at times it can be difficult to differentiate between a report of noise disturbance and a complaint. However, the evidence shows the landlord considered the contact from the resident in April 2016 as a complaint and said she “sent in a letter of complaint”. However, there is no evidence to show it responded to this in line with its complaints policy.
In February 2019 the resident raised a further complaint and in May 2019 her MP told the landlord about her concerns. However the landlord failed to respond to this complaint in line within its complaints policy. This was not appropriate.
Another complaint was raised on 6 June 2019, where the resident told the landlord that her complaints were not being addressed. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 June 2019 and spoke to the resident on 19 June 2019, it failed to respond in writing as detailed in its complaints policy. This was also not appropriate.
In April 2020 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord about the resident’s complaint and told it that it failed to respond to her previous letter. Whilst the landlord responded to this letter on 20 April 2020, its response was not appropriate as it incorrectly told the MP that the resident had not raised any concerns about noise or pets and said the resident should contact it to report ASB concerns. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to take meaningful action and act in a resolution focused way.
Following this on 24 February 2021, with the assistance of her MP, the resident complained again. The landlord responded to the MP on 2 March 2021 telling her it had opened an ASB case that day. The landlord’s letter from 2 March 2021, has been treated as its stage one response.
It took the landlord over two years to issue a stage one response, this was a significant delay and was not in line with its complaints policy especially when the resident had reported the issues for over five years. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint at a time she repeatedly told it her complaints were being ignored and “blocked” meant that she and her MP had to repeatedly contact it over a significant period of time about the same issue. This amounts to maladministration.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 23 July 2021 telling the resident of the steps it would take to resolve the noise concerns. The stage two response was issued within an appropriate time.
In its stage two response the landlord acknowledged its failure to progress the resident’s case and offered a remedy of £50 in recognition of the time and effort invested by the tenant. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge its failure to trigger its complaints policy for over two years. It is clear its repeated failings had a significant impact on the resident especially as she continued to complain about the same issue for several years and had to involve her MP. The resident told the landlord of the impact of the noise as well as how she said it had affected her mental health and where she slept. When considering this, combined with her overall feeling of her complaints being blocked, a larger compensation amount would be more proportionate to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident, and the Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation below.

The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s record keeping

As part of this Service’s investigation the evidence shows that the landlord incorrectly told the resident’s MP in April 2020 that it had not received ASB concerns from the resident. This was despite evidence to the contrary, which included the resident initially raising her concerns about the noise from the flooring in June 2015 and raising four complaints between April 2016 and April 2020 which repeated the noise concerns about the flooring and the dog.
In March 2021 the landlord told the resident’s MP that the resident had no historic or active ASB cases. This was despite what it had been previously told by the resident and her MP.
The landlord continued to miss the resident’s further complaints about the same issue in December 2022 and it was only after the resident emailed its CEO on 31 March 2022 that it acknowledged it had done this and said it was due to staff leaving. It is also noted that in its further response to the resident’s same concerns it said it was unlikely to establish why policies were not enforced or why certain decisions were made as staff had left and it “could only rely on information it had on its system.”
Good record keeping is important to evidence the actions a landlord has taken and understand why it adopted the approach it did, especially if it was not in line with its policies. Good record keeping can also help a landlord to provide a continuation of service when staff leave and when handling complaints. A failure to keep adequate records indicates the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord should be aware of what a resident has previously raised and why its staff have adopted certain approaches, especially when they fall outside of its policies. Its staff should also be aware of its record management policy and procedures and should adhere to these.
The landlord’s repeated record keeping failings and its acceptance of information not being available due to staff leaving was not appropriate. This meant the resident had to repeatedly raise the same concerns, chase complaints, involve her MP and has been left unaware of why it decided to approach her noise concerns in the way it did. When considering all the above combined, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbances.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It took the landlord over six years to investigate the laminate flooring concerns, as a possible breach of its tenancy agreement. The landlord’s failure to act in line with its policies meant the resident had to repeatedly raise the same issues with it over a significant period of time. The resident had to repeatedly involve her MP and tell the landlord of the impact its lack of action was having on her wellbeing, where she slept in her home and of her worry about the impact of the events on her relationship with her neighbour, which she was keen to maintain.
The resident and her MP raised five complaints between February 2019 and February 2021 before the landlord triggered its complaint policy and issued a stage one response on 2 March 2021. Whilst the landlord accepted some failure to progress the resident’s case in its stage two response, its offer of £50 to recognise the resident’s time and effort was not proportionate to the actual time and trouble spent by the resident due to its repeated complaint handling failures over a significant period of time.
On more than one occasion the landlord incorrectly told the resident’s MP that it had not received reports of noise nuisance from the resident despite the information available to the contrary. The landlord’s position that it missed complaints due to staff leaving and that it would not know why it handled the matter in the way it did due to staff leaving reflects its record keeping processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s poor record keeping meant the resident had to chase and escalate her complaints over a significant period of time. It is also acknowledged that the resident has been left feeling that she will not know why the landlord handled her concerns in the way it did.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report, in person (or in writing if preferred by the resident).
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,300 in compensation within four weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation compromises of:
1. £650 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure in the handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
2. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s repeated complaint handling failings.
3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor record keeping.
4. £50 previously offered if it has not paid this already.
The Ombudsman orders, that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to contact the resident to establish if the noise concerns have been resolved. Within two weeks of this the landlord is to confirm to the resident and this Service an agreed action plan with reasonable timeframes if the resident reports the noise issues are ongoing.
The Ombudsman orders, that within four weeks of the date of this repot, the landlord is to contact the resident to discuss what help and support it can provide her, if needed. Following this the landlord should consider if it should update any recorded vulnerabilities.
The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to review the Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight on noise complaints: Time to be heard’ published in October 2022 and confirm the learning it has taken from this and any adjustments it has made to handling of reports of noise nuisance.