Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202217569)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217569

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

27 October 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 handling of the resident’s complaint about excessive noise caused by works to the lift and boiler within the building.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a top-floor flat within a communal building. 
  2. The resident initially contacted the landlord about excessive noise on 10 January 2022. The resident stated that work was ongoing on the roof to replace the boiler, and that the level of noise was well over 80 decibels(dB). The resident questioned whether a noise assessment had been done, and asked to be informed of the times that noisy works would be occurring. The resident contacted the landlord again during April and May 2022 to report that noise from the works to the lift (that had commenced in March 2022) were extremely loud, and that she had received no response to her complaint that was submitted in January 2022.
  3. The resident submitted a further complaint on 12 July 2022. She stated that works to the lift had caused noise of over 80 dB in her flat, and that she did not believe a health and safety risk assessment was carried out regarding the noise levels. The resident said that she had followed her complaint up multiple times since January. She said that her and her partner had been unable to work from home due to the noise, and that she had headaches and damage to her hearing as a result of the noise.
  4. The stage one response was issued on 28 July 2022. The landlord stated that the correct risk assessment had taken place, and that it was unable to provide residents with a programme of works as this could change regularly due to supply and contract requirements. It said that all residents were made aware of the works in writing. The landlord stated that the contractors would be asked not to complete noisy works before the agreed time, and an apology was offered due to works starting before 9am on occasions. The landlord offered £25 compensation for poor complaint handling.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 July 2022. The resident said that a risk assessment should have been completed to assess the level and duration of noise. She said that the landlord had not communicated to residents that work would have a noise impact prior to the works commencing. The resident said that she had still not been provided with a duration for the works. She also said that the contractors had started work prior to 9am that week
  6. The stage two response was issued on 14 September 2022. The landlord stated that the contractor had agreed to publish a weekly schedule of noisy works on the resident noticeboard which would be updated on a weekly basis. It also said it had provided the resident with access to NoiseApp so that she could submit recordings of noisy works that took place prior to 9am. The landlord also identified issues with how the complaint was handled. It said that the initial complaint response did not fully address the resident’s complaint, nor did it put appropriate resolutions in place. It also said it had not taken into consideration the time and trouble caused to the resident. The landlord increased the amount of compensation offered to £225, which was made up of £200 for time and trouble incurred and £25 for poor complaints handling.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 8 November 2022. She said that the noise was ongoing, and that the noise levels had reached 90 dB, with the work starting prior to 9am on some days. The resident said that she had not received the compensation payment, and that the landlord should reassess the amount of compensation given that she had previously accepted this based on timely payment to resolve the matter. The resident said the landlord should apologise for mismanagement of the complaint and ensure the contractors update the noisy works schedule on a weekly basis.
  8. The landlord contacted the resident on 7 July 2023 and offered her an additional £300 compensation. It said that an additional £100 was offered in recognition of poor complaint handling between January 2022 and July 2022, and due to the delay in providing the stage 2 response which had not previously been acknowledged. It stated that a further £200 would be offered for service failure, because the lift works were completed in April 2023, which was beyond the deadline of December 2022. The landlord found that there was a lack of communication regarding the works being delayed.
  9. The resident informed this Service that, in order to suitably resolve her complaint, the landlord should ensure that, when major works will be undertaken, it provides accurate timelines and properly notifies residents when noisy works will take place. The resident also said that the landlord should ensure it provides residents with the ability to easily submit recordings or any other evidence that might support a complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. The policy goes on to state that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receipt, provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalation. The policy explains that if the landlord cannot respond within these timeframes, it will keep the resident informed and agree new response times.
  2. The evidence indicates that works were initially undertaken to the boiler, which were then followed by works to the lift. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 January 2022 and said that she had reported a noise complaint by phone earlier that day. She stated that the noise was caused by the works to the boiler. She asked whether a noise risk assessment had been carried out and questioned whether the landlord could provide times that the noisy work would be occurring.
  3. The landlord informed this Service that the resident’s email was not forwarded to the complaints team because there was no request for a complaint to be logged, and that the email would have been treated as a service request. However, no evidence has been provided to reflect that the landlord responded to this email in order to address the points raised by the resident. Furthermore, the email indicates that the resident wished to complain, and the landlord therefore should have acted in accordance with its complaints policy, by acknowledging the complaint, and providing a stage 1 response. This amounts to a failing by the landlord.
  4. The resident further contacted the landlord about the noise levels and submitted recordings of the noise several times during April 2022. Within her correspondence, the resident reported that she had received no response to her complaint submitted in January 2022, and she made it clear that she wished to raise a complaint about the noise. The resident again asked whether any noise risk assessments were carried out as she believed that the level of noise was a safety hazard. The landlord responded to the resident on 27 April 2022 and stated that providing the work was occurring within reasonable work hours, it would not accept the complaint as a failure of service.
  5. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a landlord shall accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. It goes on to state that if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint a detailed explanation should be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process. The matters raised by the resident fit the definition of a complaint as described in the landlord’s complaints policy, and it is unreasonable that the landlord failed to accept the resident’s complaint for the reason given. This amounts to a failing by the landlord.
  6. The evidence reflects that the resident raised further concerns about the noise issues in May 2022, and sent recordings to support her complaint. The resident explained that her and her partner worked from home, and she requested to be informed of the days that noisy work would take place so that they could plan to work elsewhere. The resident’s emails indicate that she had missed a call from the landlord on 6 May 2022 in response to her reports. The resident stated that when she called back, the call operator was unable to hear her due to the level of noise. It is unclear as to whether the landlord spoke to the resident about her concerns at this stage. There is no evidence to reflect that the landlord responded to the resident by email.
  7. On 6 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that work had started at 7am that morning. She again requested to be informed prior to such works taking place, especially when occurring outside of agreed hours. The resident also asked for an update regarding her previous query about a health and safety risk assessment. The landlord responded to the resident and advised her to submit a complaint via its website. The resident submitted the complaint on 12 July 2022. This was an unreasonable request from the landlord. Given that the resident had made clear her concerns, it would have been appropriate for a complaint to have been raised (contacting her should clarification be required), without requiring the resident to take further time and trouble reiterating her complaint via its website. 
  8. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that the correct risk assessment had taken place for the works. However, it provided no details of this to the resident. Furthermore, the landlord stated that it was unable to share a programme of works with residents, as it could change regularly. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord considered any alternative solution to notifying residents when particularly noisy work would take place. The landlord accepted that work had taken place prior to 9am on occasions, and the complaint was upheld on this basis. However, the landlord failed to address the actual noise levels, which the resident had reported as being a health hazard.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 July 2022, and the stage 2 response was issued on 14 September 2022. The stage 2 response was therefore provided approximately 13 days in excess of the 20 day timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord identified issues with the way the resident’s complaint was handled at stage 1, but it did not identify that there had been an unreasonable delay in the stage 2 response.
  10. The landlord took some appropriate steps to resolve the issue as part of the stage 2 outcome. The landlord confirmed that the contractor had been spoken to, to ensure that noisy works were not taking place before 9am. It said that it had been unable to provide the resident’s recordings to the contractors due to IT restrictions, and so it would give the resident access to the Noise App so that she could submit evidence of noisy works that took place prior to 9am. It also acknowledged that the noise had caused particular disruption to the resident due to her working from home. As a solution, it said that the contractors had agreed to publish a weekly schedule of noisy works that would be updated every Friday. This was a reasonable action that could have allowed the resident to make alternative working arrangements, and therefore helped to mitigate the impact of the excessive noise.
  11. However, the resident informed this Service that she submitted multiple recordings via the Noise App, but the landlord did not take any action in response to these. The landlord informed the Ombudsman that it had received recordings submitted by the resident on the Noise App, but only one of these occurred before 9am, at 8:55am. While this indicates that the contractors had largely stopped carrying out works prior to 9am, the evidence indicates that the resident’s concerns about the level of noise throughout the day had continued. It appears that the landlord was not monitoring the app for recordings which may have evidenced an excessive level of noise, but for recordings which evidenced work outside of agreed hours. At no point did the landlord taken any action to assess the noise level or fully address the resident’s concerns about this being a hazard. 
  12. In terms of the noise schedule, the resident informed this Service that the schedule stated there would be noisy works everyday between 9am – 6pm, and did not provide any specific details of when particularly noisy works would take place. This indicates that this action was ineffective in mitigating the impact of the noise on the resident.
  13. The works to the lift exceeded the original timeframe, and were not completed until April 2023. The landlord informed the Ombudsman that it did not communicate this delay to residents, and it recognised that it therefore did not manage residents’ expectations appropriately.
  14. The resident appears to have been particularly affected by the noise levels because the works were being carried out on the roof, and therefore in close proximity to her top floor flat. It is expected that a level of noise disruption will be caused by such works that cannot be avoided. However, it is evident that the resident repeatedly raised concerns that the level of noise was not only disruptive, but was causing a health risk. While this service cannot reach a determination on whether the noise levels were dangerous, it can consider the landlord’s response to her reports, which in this case were insufficient. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have attended the property to carry out an inspection of the noise levels to assess whether they had reached unsafe levels. Furthermore, the resident contacted the landlord multiple times to request details regarding a health and safety risk assessment, and to request times that particularly noisy work would be carried out. However, there was a significant delay in answers being provided to the resident, and when responses were given as part of the stage 1 response, a lack of useful information was given. The failings identified amount to maladministration by the landlord.
  15. The evidence indicates that the resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the high levels of noise, which continued beyond the timescales initially given. Significant further frustration will have been caused as a result of the landlord’s lack of responses to the resident’s reports from January to July 2022, and the landlord’s refusal to log the matter as a complaint. The resident incurred time and trouble in pursuing the matter with the landlord.
  16. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  17. The landlord has made some attempt to put things right by offering a total of £525 compensation. £200 was offered as part of the stage 2 response for the time and trouble incurred by the resident, due to the management of the complaint at stage 1. A further £100 was offered for poor complaint handling, in addition to the £25 offered at stage 1. While it is appropriate that the landlord has now acknowledged its poor complaint handling between January and July 2022, it is unreasonable that this was recognised approximately a year later. Suitable compensation ought to have been offered at the time, as part of the landlord’s own complaint process. The landlord offered a further £200 to account for the additional delays in the work being completed between January and April 2023.
  18. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the compensation offered reflects the overall level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The £525 offered by the landlord is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for financial redress, which suggests amounts of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact. As such, the compensation offered is proportionate and in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (although as above, it was a failing that it was not provided via the landlord’s own complaint process).
  19. It is noted that the works have now been completed and, as such, there is no longer a noise issue. Therefore, it is not necessary to make orders for the landlord to take any additional action to put things right. However, the landlord should take steps to learn from this complaint.
  20. The stage 2 response indicates that the landlord has undertaken learning to ensure that complaint responses address the relevant issues raised by a resident and reach appropriate resolutions. It said that it was reviewing the working practices and structure of its complaints team, and had introduced a more effective quality checking process so that customer service could be more closely monitored. While these are positive steps, the landlord should establish whether any learning can be identified as a result of its failure to handle the resident’s complaint between January to July 2022. It has therefore been ordered below that the landlord should review its handling of the resident’s complaint, particularly in relation to the lack of responses to her concerns and questions about noise, and the decision not to log the resident’s complaint in April 2022. The landlord should identify any actions it will be taken to improve its complaint handling, and provide details of this to the Ombudsman.
  21. The landlord is also ordered to implement a process for actions it will take following reports of excessive noise caused by ongoing works. This should include attending the property to assess the noise levels, providing the resident with access to the Noise App at an early stage and ensuring noisy works schedules are regularly and accurately updated by contractors.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about excessive noise caused by works to the lift and boiler within the building.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the additional £300 compensation that it offered in July 2023.
  2. The landlord should review its handling of the resident’s complaint between January to July 2022. This should focus on the lack of responses to the resident’s concerns and questions about noise, and the decision not to log the resident’s complaint. The landlord should identify any actions it will take to improve its complaint handling, and provide details of this to the Ombudsman.
  3. The landlord should implement a process for actions it will take following reports of excessive noise caused by ongoing works. This should include attending the property to assess the noise levels, providing the resident with access to the Noise App at an early stage and ensuring noisy works schedules are regularly and accurately updated by contractors.
  4. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this service within 28 days of this report

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord ensures it provides residents with accurate timescales for works that will take place, and that residents are updated if the works will exceed the timescales given.