Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202212445)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212445

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

7 December 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of structural noise issues with the property.

Background

2. The resident has been a shared owner of the landlord since August 2020. The property is a new build flat on the second floor with adjoining properties.
3. The resident first reported an issue with noise to the landlord on 1 March 2021. In the report, she stated she could hear footfall, conversations, doors being opened and closed, security buzzers and bathroom noise. The landlord told the resident on 8 June 2021 that if she felt more investigations were required, she would need to organise and pay for these. If she did and a defect was proven, the landlord would pass the results on to the developer for further investigation and reimbursement to the resident.
4. The developer arranged a further sound test which took place on 14 October 2021. This included an airborne floor test and an impact floor test. The property passed this inspection. The landlord told the resident on 1 November 2021 that as her property had passed the recent acoustic test, no works were required in her property or those adjoining.
5. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 1 December 2021. She remained unhappy with the noise entering her property and having to arrange tests at her own cost. She had sought private advice and had been told the issue could be relating to “flanking transmission” which was not covered in the test by the developer. She was unhappy that this had not been taken into consideration and outlined her requirements for a solution.
6. In its responses on 19 January and 4 March 2022, the landlord stated that it had already followed its own policy by involving the developer for further investigation which had found no defects. It would, therefore, not be carrying out further inspections. The landlord further stated tests had shown her property to meet building regulation requirements.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint as it had not arranged the further tests she requested. As such, she requested an investigation by this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. Some of the points raised in the resident’s formal complaint on 1 December 2021 related directly to the actions of the developer. As such these will not be commented on as they are outside of the jurisdiction of this Service under paragraph 41 of the Scheme.

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

9. The landlord’s defects policy sets out the repairs responsibilities for both it and its leaseholders. Residents can report complaints and defects within their defect liability period. These are considered by the landlord who manages reporting and fixing of the defects with its contractors.
10. The defect liability period for the resident’s property ended on 5 August 2021. The landlord’s policy states that once the defect liability period expires, certain defects will still be covered by warranty. Where a defect is not agreed by the landlord, it should advise the resident that it is their responsibility to fix the repair inside the property.
11. A noise test was conducted by sub-contractor 1 across multiple dates in February and March 2020 before the property was purchased by the resident. The test was for airborne sound insulation and impact sound insulation. The property passed these tests.
12. The resident first reported concerns to the landlord that the sound insulation in her property was inadequate on 1 March 2021. The landlord logged this on 2 March 2021 and sought comments from the developers on the same day. The developer told the landlord it would investigate. In this case, the landlord reacted promptly to the resident’s report. 
13. The landlord received information from the developer on 19 May 2021. It emailed the resident with an update on 8 June 2021. It stated that the developer had thoroughly investigated the noise issue as required under the warranty and no problems had been found. It told her that if she felt more investigation was required, it would be her responsibility to organise and prove that there was a noise related defect which would be covered by the warranty. This action by the landlord was reasonable and in line with its own policy for times when it has not found defects.
14. The developer conducted a further noise test in the property on 14 October 2021 and it passed all tests with no noise issues identified. The test included airborne floor tests and impact floor tests. The landlord arranged this test at the resident’s urging, but it was not obliged to, given that none of the tests or investigations so far had identified any problems. Doing so showed that it was treating the resident’s concerns seriously and willing to go further to try and resolve them.
15. The landlord received the noise test results from the developer on 28 October 2021 and relayed this to the resident 2 working days later, on 1 November 2021. It confirmed that no works were required in her property or the property above as no defects were found. The landlord shared these results promptly.
16. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident described experiencing noise issues since moving into the property in August 2020, calling the noise “excessive” and stating it was coming from the property above by means of flanking transmission. She stated she did not want to take the financial risk of arranging her own tests, but included her own noise measurements recorded on an app.
17. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 18 February 2022 as she did not feel it had been resolved at stage 1. She remained unhappy with the amount of noise in her property. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 22 February 2022.
18. Part of the resident’s concern was that the landlord did not specifically test for flanking transmission. Flanking transmission is when sound travels over, under or around a partition or barrier. It did not specifically respond to this point in its complaint response, and it may have been helpful if it had. Nonetheless, the evidence shows that the landlord worked with the developer to conduct what it considered to be the relevant and appropriate tests and nothing in the evidence shows that it was obliged to undertake further tests.
19. The landlord also considered the technical information the resident provided from her own app measurements and explained how and why this did not impact on its final decision.
20. In its responses to the resident’s complaints the landlord set out the investigations it had taken, its consideration of the data she had provided, and how it had reached its conclusions that there were no apparent defects. Its responses were appropriate to the issues the resident had raised and reflected the audio test outcomes.
21. The resident’s frustration with the noise she experiences is clear from her correspondence, and wholly understandable. It must be emphasised that this investigation is not determining whether there is a noise problem or not, and the resident’s own noise data suggests there could be room for further investigation. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether a landlord has acted reasonably and fairly based on the information and evidence it had before it. In this case the landlord acted in line with its defect policies, and the evidence shows that its explanations and decisions accurately reflected the evidence it had.  
22. The resident may consider contacting the National House-Building Council (NHBC) or her equivalent relevant warranty provider, or the New Homes Ombudsman Service for further advice in relation to her complaint points about the developer of her property and any additional investigations required.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise transference.