Peabody Trust (202117790)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117790

Peabody Trust

31 July 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about noise from the flat above.
2. The landlord’s handling of reported damage to the ceiling of the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the wet room to prevent flooding.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about billing for communal electricity.
6. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about billing for communal electricity is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure…”. In this case, although the resident raised the matter with the landlord on 11 October 2021, the landlord did not respond to the issue in its stage one reply and advised the resident in its stage two reply that the matter had not been through its complaints process.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy, which began on 24 June 2002. The property is a two-bedroom basement flat in a converted house.
The flat above the property is owned by a leaseholder (referred to in this report as ‘the leaseholder’) and the leaseholder sub-lets the property to tenants. The leaseholder’s lease agreement states:
1. Clause 3.19 – the leaseholder agrees “to provide carpets or such other suitable floor coverings to the floors of the premises”.
2. Clause 3.25 – the leaseholder agrees “not to keep any bird, reptile, dog, cat or any other animal…in the premises…without the written permission of the landlord”.
The resident has been represented by a neighbour in progressing her complaint. Therefore, references to the ‘resident’ in this report may also refer to the resident’s representative.
On 20 July 2020, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord about noise emanating from the flat above. The solicitor advised the landlord that the resident had an autistic son and the resident and her son were being disturbed by behaviour, such as stamping on the floor and the dog barking. The solicitor requested the landlord to serve a section 146 notice (under the Law of Property Act 1925) for breach of the lease. The solicitor stated that the resident was willing to act as a witness in any legal action taken by the landlord.
On 5 October 2021, a neighbour in an adjacent property wrote to the landlord to report that she was constantly being disturbed by the dog barking in the leaseholder’s flat.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 October 2021 to report the following:
1. Large studs began protruding through the resident’s ceiling following building work in the upstairs flat.
2. The landlord had paid for carpets to be fitted in the flat above some years ago, but these had been removed and not replaced.
3. The wooden flooring was causing noise problems, including noise from large dogs.
4. The noise had impacted on the resident’s health due to medical conditions and also on the health of her son.
5. The resident was unhappy that the anti-social behaviour (ASB) case had been closed by the landlord because she had not responded on time.
The landlord replied to the resident on 8 October 2021 and advised the resident of the following:
1. It was only able to go back six months when dealing with complaints.
2. It currently had an open ASB case relating to the resident’s reports of noise.
3. The landlord was able to send a surveyor to inspect the ‘bolt holes’ in the resident’s ceiling and to make good and assist.
On 11 October 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and said she wanted to make a formal complaint for the following reasons:
1. She had persistently complained to the landlord about noise from the flat above.
2. She was unhappy about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff in handling the ASB case.
3. The landlord’s surveyor should also inspect the flat above to decide how best to address the “noise pollution”.
4. The windows in the property were damaged and ill-fitting and previous complaints about their condition had not been addressed by the landlord.
5. The landlord had removed the carpets from the flat above when carrying out building work.
6. When the flat above was sold, the leaseholder did nothing to prevent the noise pollution caused by, for example, dogs running on the “bare wooden floorboards”.
7. ‘Bolt holes’ had appeared in the resident’s ceiling following building works in the flat above.
8. Water from the resident’s shower was running towards the bathroom door and was in danger of causing flooding in the hallway.
9. The landlord should examine the billing for communal electricity because the resident did not have access to the communal hallway.
The resident also wrote to the landlord on 12 and 13 October 2021 and quotationd various clauses from the leaseholder’s lease agreement and said that the leaseholder was required to fit carpets to his flat. The resident also questioned whether the landlord should only investigate events going back six months as she had consistently complained about the problem of noise.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 October 2021 and asked her to confirm whether she had submitted previous diary sheets and audio recordings. The landlord explained that the information was needed in order to establish a pattern of noise and to determine if the noise is loud, consistent, excessive and ‘out of hours’, all of which would constitute noise nuisance rather than everyday noise. The landlord said that it would require new diary sheets and audio recordings if the noise was current and ongoing.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 October 2021 and asked for clarification on whether the landlord wanted her to re-submit all of the previous ASB diary sheets. The resident reported further noise from the flat above during the night of 14 October 2021 and stated that it had kept her awake and was affecting her health. The resident stated that the occupant of the flat above had a second large dog, which was making noise.
The resident replied to the landlord on 14 October 2021 and pointed out that she had submitted diary sheets and audio recordings over the years. The resident clarified that building works had been carried out by the landlord in the upstairs flat just before it was sold and, as part of the works, the carpets were removed. The resident requested the landlord to set up a ‘WhatsApp’ account so she could submit audio recordings.
The landlord replied on the same day (14 October 2021) to confirm that it would review its case handling over the last six months and would arrange a joint visit with a surveyor to check if the previous building work had affected the acoustics.
On 19 October 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that the ‘WhatsApp’ account had not yet been set up and she had not received an appointment for the surveyor to visit.
The landlord’s records indicate that it arranged for an external contractor to visit the property on 29 October 2021 to provide a quotation to fit ceiling insulation and new plasterboard to the resident’s ceiling. As well as reducing noise, the work would also address the ‘bolt holes’ in the ceiling. The landlord rejected the quotation on the basis of cost and because the ‘bolt holes’ were deemed by the landlord to be cosmetic.
On 1 November 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the hallway floor covering had swollen and the walls in the hallway had bubbles in the plasterwork because the issues with the shower had not been addressed.
On 3 November 2021, the landlord sent an update to the resident to say it was waiting for feedback from the surveyor who had inspected the property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 November 2021 and requested that the landlord escalate her complaint. She stated that the occupants in the flat above and their dog had caused further noise during the previous night. The resident asked the landlord what action it had taken to approach the leaseholder of the flat above. Finally, the resident advised the landlord that some of the recordings she had submitted had been made at night and therefore the landlord had been incorrect to say that the noise was not taking place ‘out of hours’. The landlord replied on the same day to say it was still awaiting feedback regarding the resident’s repairs.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 November 2021 to ask the landlord why its surveyor had not visited the flat above at the same time as visiting her property. The resident advised the landlord that she was still experiencing noise problems and also that her hallway flooring had been ruined because of water from the shower.
On 8 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the following:
1. It had reviewed the audio recordings and although some noise was present (“faint repetitive thudding and banging noise” and a dog barking), it said the noise was not loud.
2. The landlord concluded that the noise was not excessive nor loud enough to warrant taking enforcement action.
3. The landlord said it would investigate further and discuss the issue of the laminate flooring with the owner of the flat above.
4. The landlord acknowledged that the addition of a thick rug or underlay and carpet would “greatly mitigate the noise transference issues”. The landlord therefore said it intended to work with the leaseholder until the issue had been resolved.
The resident replied to the landlord on 8 November 2021 and questioned her findings. She suggested that the landlord should speak to the leaseholder of the flat above, rather than the tenant.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 November 2021 and asked why the ‘WhatsApp’ account had been turned off. The landlord replied on the same day and said that the account had only been set up to allow it to review the audio clips, which it had now completed.
On 11 November 2021, the landlord’s contractor inspected the property and produced a quotation to be submitted to the landlord for the following work:
1. Remove and dispose of the existing wet room flooring;
2. Supply and install new wet room flooring;
3. Dig out and renew the putty to the windows.
On 11 November 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated the following:
1. In her view, the landlord had failed to follow its own complaints policy as the resident had submitted several complaints and requests for help.
2. The resident requested confirmation that the landlord had read the resident’s complaint about the conduct of one of its staff.
3. The resident had been using an old phone with poor sound quality to record the noise and the noise had been witnessed by a neighbour living in the same building.
4. The laminate flooring over the floorboards had been fitted by the landlord. The resident reminded the landlord that it had suggested laying underlay and carpet and asked when this would occur.
5. The resident requested the landlord to clarify its intentions regarding the ‘bolt holes’ as it should have received its surveyor’s report.
6. The resident asked for the landlord’s intended action regarding other issues including damp, the shower flooding, window repairs and garden maintenance.
7. The resident asked why there had been no response from the landlord in relation to the solicitor’s letter of 20 July 2020.
8. The resident asked for clarification on whether the ASB case was still open or had been closed.
9. The issues had caused the resident stress, which had aggravated other medical conditions.
An internal email dated 13 November 2021 noted that there were no holes in the property’s ceiling, just small areas where the plasterboard fixings had protruded slightly through the plaster. The email stated that the protrusions were cosmetic issues, which were the tenant’s responsibility.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord on 17 November 2021 to report further noise from the flat above, which had disrupted her sleep. The landlord replied on the same day to confirm that it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage one of its complaints process.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 November 2021 to advise it that she was still waiting for a reply to her email dated 11 November 2021 and that her formal complaint had been submitted on 11 October 2021.
On 22 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that her email was initially dealt with informally, but as the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s reply, it had now been logged as a stage one complaint (it is not clear to this Service, which of the resident’s emails the landlord was referring to).
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 26 November 2021, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord had reviewed the audio recordings and although some noise was heard, it was insufficient to constitute a noise nuisance.
2. The landlord agreed to approach the leaseholder to discuss the banging and barking and the laminate flooring.
3. The landlord confirmed it would discuss with the leaseholder why he had installed laminate flooring without permission, but the landlord said it would not be able to share the details of the discussion because of confidentiality.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord rejected the quotation received from the contractor for the work to the wet room floor and to renew the glazing putty to the windows.
On 1 December 2021, the resident replied to the landlord and requested copies of both surveyors’ reports, reimbursement for incorrect communal electricity and entryphone billing and for a reply to her complaint. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 3 December 2021 requesting an update on her complaints.
On 6 December 2021, the landlord approved an amended quotation from the contractor for the work to the wet room floor and to renew the glazing putty to the windows.
The contractor’s records indicate that it phoned the resident on 11 and 13 December 2021 to agree an appointment to carry out the repairs to the wet room floor and the windows but did not receive an answer.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 December 2021 to advise her of the next steps regarding her request to escalate her complaint to stage two. The landlord confirmed that it would aim to reply to the stage two complaint by 13 January 2022.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 December 2021 and asked for information on both of the surveyors’ reports (ie about the windows and the bathroom), the surveyor’s report on the flooring in the flat above, the conduct of one of its staff, the communal electricity bill and the entryphone.
The landlord’s records show that an appointment had been booked to carry out the repairs to the wet room and the windows on 4 January 2022 but did not proceed due to adverse weather. The repairs were rebooked to be carried out on 7 January 2022. However, the records indicate that the work did not proceed because the resident did not provide access (the records do not provide a reason for the resident refusing access).
On 14 January 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord for an update on her stage two complaint. The landlord replied on the same day to advise the resident that it expected to complete the stage two review in the next 10 working days. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 3 February 2022 to advise her that it intended to reply to the stage two complaint by 11 February 2022, but that some of the issues raised by the resident had not been through stage one of the process.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 February 2022 and included the following points:
1. The landlord’s surveyor should have visited the flat above to examine the building work that had been carried out by the leaseholder.
2. The landlord had not addressed the issue of dogs being kept in the flat above.
3. The landlord had apparently recommended applying putty to the windows to repair them.
4. The resident confirmed she was seeking a refund of the communal electricity bill.
5. the resident reported that water was still coming from the bathroom into the hallway when the shower was used, and the contractor had taken measurements to take up the bathroom floor.
The landlord’s records show that a further appointment had been booked to carry out the work to the wet room and windows on 8 February 2022. The records indicate that the resident did not provide access and therefore the order was cancelled by the contractor. The Ombudsman has not seen any information that shows why the resident did not provide access for the repairs.
The landlord sent its stage two reply on 15 February 2022, in which it stated the following:
1. The resident’s stage one complaint was logged on 17 November 2021 and a formal reply was sent on 26 November 2021, which addressed the reported ASB and noise from the neighbour. The landlord said that its review found the steps taken to be in line with its ASB policy.
2. The landlord did not have the authority to order the neighbour to modify inside their home by, for example, laying carpet as the noise was not loud enough to be a noise nuisance.
3. The landlord asked the resident to continue keeping notes of any noise that was problematic and stated that it would be able to provide diary sheets if needed.
4. The landlord said it had noted the resident’s references to her mental and physical health and was prepared, with her permission, to make a referral to its family support team.
5. Although the other issues raised by the resident had not been through its complaints process, the landlord said it was providing the following information to assist:
  1. The resident should advise the landlord whether it wanted it to forward her enquiry about the communal electricity billing to its rent and service charge team.
  2. The inspections carried out in relation to the property had been undertaken by the contractor rather than the landlord’s surveyors. The landlord apologised for the confusion.
  3. Ceiling / ‘bolt holes’ – the landlord had noted that these were cosmetic issues and were therefore the tenant’s responsibility.
  4. Damp/shower/flooding – the contractor had reported that there was an issue with the wet room floor, which was allowing water to flow from the bathroom to the hallway rather than to the drain. Therefore by adjusting the wet room flooring, the water would be directed to the drain. These works had therefore been booked in for later in the month.
  5. Window repairs – the works advised by the contractor was to apply/ renew the putty to the windows.
6. The garden maintenance issue raised by the resident was not part of the complaint and therefore the resident should provide more information in order for the landlord to investigate.
7. Complaint learning – the landlord stated that it had not managed the resident’s expectations during a significant period of time and it did not make clear which issues were part of the formal complaint. There were also delays at both stage one and stage two of the complaints process. The landlord therefore apologised and offered the resident £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience and £100 for the complaint handling errors.

Events after the landlord’s final response letter

An internal email dated 28 March 2022 from the landlord indicates that the landlord had spoken to the leaseholder about the laminate flooring and the leaseholder had confirmed the following:
1. The leaseholder had fitted the laminate flooring as he believed this was not prohibited by the lease.
2. The leaseholder stated that he had fitted plywood and a thick layer of underlay beneath the laminate flooring specifically to reduce noise transference.
3. As the previous tenant had moved out, the leaseholder would prohibit any of his new tenants from keeping a dog.
The resident has advised this Service that since the new tenants moved into the flat above, she has not experienced any issues regarding noise.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 October 2021 and requested compensation for the “irreparable damage and stress” caused to her mental and physical health and to that of her son. The Ombudsman does not dispute that the resident has been affected by the circumstances of the complaint. However, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 and 14 October 2021 and stated that building work had been carried out in the flat above just before it was sold and as part of the work the carpets were removed. The resident also stated that after the completion of the work various ‘bolt holes’ appeared on her ceiling. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that the flat was sold in 2016 and therefore, based on the resident’s emails, this is when the carpets were removed and roughly when the ‘bolt holes’ appeared. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. As the resident formally complained to the landlord in October 2021, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate events prior to 2021, including the removal of the carpets and the cause of the ‘bolt holes’ on the resident’s ceiling.
The Ombudsman has, however, investigated whether the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s concerns about these matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and responded reasonably, applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice when reaching decisions.
For the same reasons as outlined above, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate the resident’s reports of noise prior to 2021.
The resident has recently reported various communal maintenance issues to this Service. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all of the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. The Ombudsman can, therefore, only consider the landlord’s response to issues and incidents up to the date of its final response and therefore cannot investigate the communal maintenance issues that have been raised by the resident. This approach is consistent with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about noise from the flat above

The landlord does not have a separate noise policy document, instead noise nuisance is covered within its ASB policy.
The landlord’s ASB policy states: “We will only investigate noise nuisance where the noise is frequently excessive in volume and duration or occurs at unreasonable hours. It is reasonable to expect some level of noise from everyday life…”.
It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. However, the role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the resident’s neighbour was causing a noise nuisance. The role of this Service is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
When receiving a report of noise nuisance, the Ombudsman would expect landlords to carry out an appropriate investigation to establish whether a nuisance exists. In this case, the resident wrote to the landlord on 6 October 2021 and reported that the neighbours living in the flat above were creating noise problems, largely due to the absence of carpets in the property and the presence of at least one dog. The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 October 2021 stating that she had persistently complained about noise problems from the flat above. The landlord replied on 14 October 2021 and stated that it would need new diary sheets and audio recordings to establish whether there was a pattern of noise and whether the noise was excessive and occurring ‘out of hours’. Although the evidence indicates that the resident had already submitted diary sheets and recordings over a period of time, it was reasonable for the landlord to request new diary sheets and recordings to establish whether there was a current problem and, if so, to determine the extent of the problem.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 October 2021 to agree that it would review its case handling over the last six months and would arrange a joint visit with a surveyor to check whether the previous building work had affected the acoustics. The landlord’s proposals as a way forward were reasonable because a review of the case would enable the landlord to assess whether the case had been handled in accordance with its policy, and the joint visit with the surveyor would enable it to assess the level of noise transference and to identify any practical steps that could be taken to reduce noise levels.
On 8 November 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had reviewed the audio recordings and had concluded that the noise was not excessive or loud. On 11 November 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to point out that the recordings had been produced on an old phone with poor sound quality and that the noise had been witnessed by a neighbour in the same building. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord carried out further investigations to determine whether the noise reported by the resident constituted a nuisance or to determine whether the previous building works had increased the level of noise transference. Given that the resident had pointed out to the landlord that the recordings were of poor quality and that a neighbour had reportedly witnessed the noise, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not investigate further, for example, by speaking to the neighbour, arranging for sound monitoring equipment to be installed and by arranging for a surveyor to visit the property, which it had previously given a commitment to arrange. A thorough investigation would undoubtedly have assisted the landlord in its decision making.
The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord did arrange to obtain a quotation for fitting insulation to the resident’s ceiling, but the quotation was rejected due to the significant costs involved. As landlords are not legally obliged to provide sound proofing in homes above the standards applicable at the time of building, the landlord was entitled to reject the quotation to fit insulation to the resident’s ceiling to reduce noise transference.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 October 2021 and stated that, in her view, the leaseholder had breached the terms of his lease because the leaseholder had not put down carpets and also he was keeping pets without the landlord’s permission. The evidence shows that the landlord discussed these issues with the leaseholder on or around 28 March 2022 and decided not to take any further action on the basis of the following:
1. The leaseholder had stated that his lease did not prohibit him from fitting laminate flooring;
2. The leaseholder stated that plywood and underlay had been fitted beneath the laminate flooring;
3. The leaseholder confirmed that in future his tenants would be prohibited from keeping pets.
The Ombudsman’s role is not to provide a legal interpretation of the lease agreement, however, the Ombudsman has noted that the lease does not expressly prohibit the fitting of laminate flooring and does not stipulate whether or not laminate flooring is a “suitable floor covering”. Therefore, in the absence of a definitive legal ruling, as might be given by a court, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord had acted reasonably by discussing the noise concerns with the leaseholder and obtaining assurances from the leaseholder about the quality of the laminate flooring and about future tenants not keeping pets.

The landlord’s handling of reported damage to the ceiling of the property

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairing or replacing plaster, except where cracks are “the width of a £1 coin”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 October 2021 to report that large studs were protruding through her ceiling following building works to the above flat some years ago. The landlord wrote on 8 October 2021 to say it would send a surveyor to inspect the ceiling and to make good. The landlord subsequently clarified that a contractor was sent rather than a surveyor. The ceiling was inspected on 29 October 2021 by an external contractor and, on reporting back to the landlord, the landlord decided that there were no holes present and the defects were caused by the plasterboard fixings protruding slightly through the plaster on the resident’s ceiling. As the landlord had arranged for the ceiling to be inspected by its contractor, it was entitled to rely on the contractor’s report, particularly as the repairs policy states that some plaster repairs are the responsibility of residents.
The view of the Ombudsman is therefore that the landlord’s decision not to carry out the repairs to the ceiling was reasonable because it had considered the contractor’s report and concluded that, in line with its repairs policy, the defects were cosmetic and were therefore the resident’s responsibility. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord’s decision was conveyed to the resident until the landlord’s stage 2 reply on 15 February 2022 and therefore this was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord as the resident had to chase the landlord further about the ceiling defects. Also, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord could have been more helpful in its response to the resident by, for example, explaining that plasterboard screws or nails occasionally protrude through the plaster on walls and ceilings, often due to the movement of the wooden frames or joists that the plasterboard is attached to. The landlord could also have provided the resident with some information on how to address the protruding fixings.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the wet room and the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows

The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 October 2021 and reported that water from the shower was flowing towards the hallway and also that she had concerns about the condition of the windows. The landlord’s contractor inspected both of the reported defects on 11 November 2021. It was appropriate for the contractor to inspect the defects before orders were raised because the contractor needed to diagnose the cause of the shower problem and also needed to identify the extent of the repairs needed to the windows.
The contractor submitted a quotation to the landlord to cover the repairs, but this was rejected by the landlord on 30 November 2021 (the Ombudsman has not seen any information confirming the reason it rejected the quotation). The contractor submitted an amended quotation and this was approved by the landlord on 6 December 2021. It was reasonable for the landlord to obtain a quotation from the contractor for the repairs as it meant that the landlord could approve the works to be carried at the price specified in the quotation. Having obtained the quotation, the landlord was entitled to approve or reject it.
As the works were ‘appointable’ repairs, it was appropriate for the contractor to contact the resident to agree an appointment date, which it unsuccessfully attempted to do on 11 and 13 December 2021. The landlord subsequently agreed an appointment with the resident for the repairs to be carried out on 4 January 2022, however, the contractor’s records indicate that the works did not go ahead due to adverse weather. The repairs were rebooked to be done on 7 January 2022 but the landlord has stated that the resident refused access as she wanted additional works to be included, including repairs to the hallway. A further appointment was booked for 8 February 2022 and again, according to the contractor’s records, the resident refused access and therefore the repair order was cancelled. The Ombudsman has not seen any information to confirm the reason why access was not granted by the resident for the second appointment, however, it took approximately three months following the resident’s letter of 11 October 2021 for the contractor to be ready to start the work on 7 January 2022. The Ombudsman’s view is that this was a reasonable timescale given that the contractor had to inspect the defects, produce a quotation, obtain the landlord’s approval for the works and then contact the resident to agree an appointment.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation.
The landlord’s complaints process is comprised of two stages. Stage one complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage two responses are sent within 15 working days. At both stages, an extension of 10 working days may be required, in which case an interim call or email/letter must be sent to the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that a maximum of £100 may be awarded for poor complaints handling where there is evidence of extensive failure to follow the complaint policy or procedure or to investigate a complaint correctly. In addition, up to £100 can be awarded for time, trouble and inconvenience where a service failure has occurred and this has caused minor disruption.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 October 2021 and stated that she wanted to make a formal complaint about various matters, including the reported noise from the flat above. Although the landlord corresponded with the resident during October and November 2021, it did not log the resident’s email as a stage one complaint. This was inappropriate as the resident’s email was a clear expression of dissatisfaction and she had even stated in the email that she was making a formal complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 November 2021 and it sent a stage one reply on 26 November 2021, in which it advised the resident of the outcome of its case review in relation to the reported noise. However, it did not address the other matters that were included in the resident’s email of 11 October 2021, i.e. the windows, the ‘bolt holes’ in the ceiling, the wet room, the communal electricity billing and the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff. This was inappropriate as the landlord had failed to address all of the points raised by the resident. The landlord’s records show that it was taking action regarding some of the matters raised by the resident; for example, inspecting the wet room and windows on 11 November 2021. However, the landlord’s failure to reply meant the resident had to chase the landlord on various occasions for updates, such as on 11 November 2021 and on 19 November 2021.
On 1 and 3 December 2021, the resident replied to the landlord’s stage one letter and asked for a response to her complaints. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 December 2021 to confirm that the resident’s complaint had now been escalated to stage two of its process. The landlord sent its stage two reply on 15 February 2022 and had therefore taken about two months to reply since escalating the resident’s complaint. The time taken was longer than its published timescale for replying to stage two complaints and this was therefore a shortcoming on the part of the landlord. The Ombudsman has, however, noted that the landlord wrote to the resident on 14 January 2022 and 11 February 2022 to apologise for the delay in responding.
The landlord’s stage two reply addressed most of the points that had been included in the resident’s email dated 11 October 2021 but did not address the complaint about a member of staff. This was inappropriate as the resident had also raised this in an email dated 11 November 2021 and it meant that the landlord had again not addressed all of the points raised by the resident. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”.
The landlord stated in its stage two reply that various issues had not been through its complaints process, including the defects to the resident’s ceiling and the wet room and window repairs. However, the Ombudsman has included these issues as part of its investigation as they were raised by the resident on 11 October 2021, which should have been dealt with as a stage one complaint. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman can investigate matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process if there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
In its stage two reply, the landlord apologised for the complaint handling failures and offered the resident £100 as redress for these failures, plus £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience. The landlord’s complaints policy allows it to award a maximum of £100 compensation for complaint handling failures and therefore it was appropriate for the landlord to offer this redress to the resident. The Ombudsman also welcomes the landlord’s award of the additional £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience as the resident had to chase the landlord for a response on various occasions. However, the landlord did not use the complaints process to identify and put right the service failure identified in this report in relation to the resident’s concerns about noise. In not doing so, the landlord also missed an opportunity for learning and improvement. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord’s failure to put right the service failure in relation to the noise complaint and its lack of learning, has led the Ombudsman to make a finding of service failure in relation to complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about noise from the flat above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reported damage to the ceiling of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the wet room to prevent flooding.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

Although the landlord reviewed the resident’s audio recordings to establish if there was a noise nuisance, it did not carry out further investigations such as speaking to the neighbour, installing sound monitoring equipment or arranging for a surveyor to visit, even though it had previously given a commitment to arrange such a visit.
The landlord arranged for a contractor to inspect the resident’s ceiling and took a decision that the defects were cosmetic and therefore were the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord arranged for a contractor to inspect the defects to the wet room floor, obtained a quotation for the works, approved an amended version of the quotation and the contractor arranged to carry out the work within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord arranged for a contractor to inspect the defects to the windows, obtained a quotation for the works, approved an amended version of the quotation and the contractor arranged to carry out the work within a reasonable timescale.
Although the landlord offered redress regarding the complaint handling failures, it did not use the complaints process to identify and put right the service failure in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns about noise and therefore missed an opportunity for learning and improvement.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to pay the resident £100 in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns about noise.