Peabody Trust (202200114)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200114

Peabody Trust

15 August 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 reports of noise nuisance due to cladding works which started in October 2020.
2. the landlord’s response to reports of increased cold within the property due to the cladding being removed which has also resulted in increased energy bills.
3. retro fitted fire alarms continually going off in the first six months after installation.
4. the handling of her mutual exchange in 2017.
The Ombudsman has also considered 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 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaints about retro fitted fire alarms continually going off in the first six months after installation and the handling of her mutual exchange in 2017 are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to determine.
Paragraph 42 of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
1. “a. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”
2. “c. were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
As noted below, the resident initially raised a complaint about fire alarms activating and about the handling of her mutual exchange in 2018. However, the Ombudsman does not usually investigate a complaint until it has been considered at all stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure with residents having the responsibility to escalate the complaint within a reasonable length of time. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider and resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In this case, there is no evidence that the resident escalated or otherwise pursued her complaint made in 2018 about fire alarms activating and the handling of her mutual exchange after the landlord responded at Stage 1 and to her MP in May 2018. She raised these complaint issues in her further formal complaint of 9 February 2022. However, at this time over three years had elapsed since her original complaint and the landlord’s responses of May 2018, considerably outside the six months timeframe outlined in paragraph 42c. As the resident did not escalate or otherwise pursue her complaints about fire alarms activating and the handling of her mutual exchange within a reasonable period, it is outside the jurisdiction of this service to determine.

Background and summary of events

Scope of Investigation

A GP’s letter from June 2022 confirms that the resident “has been suffering with debilitating headaches, dizziness, nausea symptoms and worsening low mood for the last 18 months. This has been triggered by ongoing building works where claddings are being removed from external walls.”
The resident has attributed a decline in her neurological condition due to noise. She has also stated that she has asthma due to cold conditions in her property. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to assess whether there is a causal link between the actions of a landlord and the impact on health. Such matters should properly be dealt with as a personal injury claim to be considered by insurers or a court or law where negligence and liability can be determined and where damages can be awarded. The service notes that the landlord in its Stage 2 response advised the resident that she could contact its insurance team about making a personal injury claim and recommends that she follows this course of action if she has not already done so, or seek legal advice. However, this service can consider the general distress and inconvenience caused by service failures of the landlord.

Background Policy, Procedural and Legal Context

The landlord’s Complaints Procedure states:
1. “Our complaints process has two stages; new complaints are logged within 5 working days as a stage one complaint and a response will be provided within 10 working days, unless an extension is notified and agreed with the complainant to fully complete the investigation before the response is provided. The stage one investigation will be carried out by a case manager who is fully trained to handle complaints”.
2. “If a complaint is raised to stage two of our process, an independent review of the complaint will be carried out by the Customer Experience Team. All requests for escalation to stage two must be received within 10 working days of receiving the stage one response. The stage two response will be provided within 20 working days of the request being received. This time limit will only be extended if more time is needed to complete the review fully. This will be communicated to, and agreed with, the complainant”.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy states:
1. With regards to Time, Trouble and Inconvenience:
  1. £1 – £100 – Service failure occurred but low impact and low effort to resolve.
  2. £101 – £300 – Low impact of but high effort to resolve or high impact but low effort to resolve.
  3. £301 – £400 – High impact and high effort to resolve, extended time to complete actions and failure to communicate or follow procedure.
2. Complaint Handling:
  1. £1 – £25 – Failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure with low level impact.
  2. £26 – £75 – Failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure or correctly investigate a complaint resulting in inconvenience and effort to progress.
  3. £76 – £100 – Evidence of extensive failure to follow the complaint policy or procedure or to investigate a complaint correctly and cause significant impact on complainant
The landlord did not have a policy for cladding at the time of the resident’s complaint. It does have an End-to-End Process Chart for all blocks in its Fire Risk Assessment Programme which states that there should be “Customer & stakeholder communications throughout”.
The landlord’s Decant Policy in effect at the time of the complaint states:
1. “We will carry out improvement works and major repairs whilst the tenant or occupant remains in their home wherever possible. However, sometimes it is necessary for tenants or occupant to move on to suitable alternative accommodation. Each case will be assessed on an individual basis. Only social housing tenants (included supported and sheltered housing tenants and licensees) will be considered eligible for a non-emergency decant”.
2. “Temporary decants will not normally be considered if the works required are like those undertaken as part of Peabody’s internal investment programme (i.e. ““Quality Homes”). However, we may offer to temporarily decant vulnerable tenants who would be negatively impacted by remaining in the property”.

Summary of Events

On 20 December 2017 the resident signed a deed of assignment for a mutual exchange to commence on 25 December 2017. The resident’s property is a two-bedroom flat on the 9th floor in a block.
The landlord has advised that it does not own the resident’s block and that the freeholder employs a managing agent which is responsible for managing structural building issues. The management agent’s contractor commenced works to remove cladding from the resident’s block in October 2020, funded by the Building Safety Fund (BSF) which was introduced by the government in 2020 to cover the cost of replacing unsafe non-ACM (Aluminium Composite Material) cladding on high rise buildings over 18 metres in England. A presentation prepared by the contractor on 7 October 2020 for residents confirmed that the works entailed the “Removal of Aluminium Composite Materials and Replacement with new Aluminium only panel, Removal of old & installation of new backing board, substructure, cavity barriers & firestop” as well as the replacement of tiles, replacement of feature panels and soffits with aluminium only panels, and the removal of all timber with aluminium-only panels.
The contractor further advised that “the removal and replacement of cladding typically will not make significant amounts of noise. However, the initial erection of access equipment will involve drilling into the building structure. This will make more significant noise”. It advised residents that they could raise complaints with the concierge service or the resident’s association who would pass comments to the site team. The contractor advised that works would commence on 12 October 2020 and that would take around 18 months to complete.
On 9 April 2018 the resident wrote the landlord stating that she wished to complain that the landlord did not advise her about the cladding issue in her block. She noted that she had originally made a complaint about the general lack of information provided by the landlord at the time of her mutual exchange on 11 January 2018, but that she had not received a response. The resident also noted the landlord had installed fire alarms in her property which would suddenly activate. She stated that the building had been evacuated 3 times during the last week. (An email sent by the resident to a legal firm on 5 April 2018 stated that 5 fire alarms were installed on or around 21 March 2018).
As well as making a formal complaint, the resident wrote to the MP on 12 April 2018 repeating her concerns that fire alarms would go off and that the landlord did not take questions or provide her with an information pack when she signed the deed of assignment to complete the mutual exchange. In its response to the MP dated 30 May 2018, the landlord advised him that it had responded to her complaint that day. It confirmed that in the response whilst it appreciated the resident’s concerns regarding the cladding, it was satisfied that it had appropriate safety measures in place in the event of a fire. With regards to the fire alarms frequently sounding it had attended and made modifications to the system which it believed would resolve the issue. The parties have not provided a copy of the complaint response, nor is there evidence that the resident further pursued her complaint at this time.
On 17 January 2019 the managing agent wrote to the landlord to update it with regards to the major works programme for the external cladding and service charge estimate for the financial year 2019.
The landlord’s records confirm that on 3 August 2020, the resident contacted it separately to enquire both about being transferred to a smaller property and about purchasing her property. There is no evidence that the resident advised of medical issues at this time.
During October 2020 the landlord’s contractor commenced works to remove the cladding. The resident has advised this Service that she called the landlord about the pain caused from drilling works 52 and the landlord agreed to post a medical form so she could be considered for another. The landlord does not have a record of the resident contacting it about this matter in October 2020.
On 29 December 2020, according to the landlord’s internal records the resident called to complain about noise although she reported the noise as coming from residents in a neighbouring property not the cladding works. The landlord opened up a pre-safeguarding case and sough to offer any support it could. It called the resident on 25 January 2021 who advised that she did not need any support.
On 19 February 2021 after the resident phoned the landlord about the safety of the cladding works it agreed to ask the management company to display the safety certificate and respond to other queries she had. In an exchange of correspondence the management company explained to the resident that the project had gone through several layers of approval and the government was aware and indeed funded the works through its ACM Fund and its Building Safety Fund. The managing agent advised “temporary works, be it scaffold access, mast climbers or hoists, undergo a rigorous design process. This is completed by the access company and checked by the contractors structural engineering consultants”. The management agent appreciated that the works caused inconvenience to residents, but they were necessary, and confirmed it would not have been approved had it not met necessary health and safety standards.
The managing agent also confirmed the working hours permitted by the local authority: 8am to 6pm on weekdays and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays. It advised that works were envisaged to continue until Summer 2022.
The landlord’s records show that on 8 March 2021 the resident advised the landlord that she wished to be moved due to her health and nervous condition and noting that building works were ongoing. On 12 March 2021 the landlord spoke to her and agreed to send a medical form that day by post, according to its notes.
The resident sent emails to the freeholder and landlord complaining about noise from drilling as it caused her pain on 21 April 2021, 19 June 2021, 9 July 2021. She advised “I am in contact with social services, my doctor and Peabody trying to find a solution to this. But it’s taking time”. The resident has advised this service that she called Customer Services regularly although neither party has provided evidence of the calls.
The resident has stated that she phoned the landlord and the landlord phoned her back six weeks later, in August 2021 agreeing to post her a medical assessment form. On 29 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord advising that she had received an envelope with only a letter inside. The landlord agreed on 29 October 2021 to email her the form, according to its response to the resident’s complaint.
In the interim the resident again emailed the landlord on 7 September 2021 about the noise. On 20 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord advising that she was suffering neurological paid because of the drilling and that if she did not receive sufficient compensation, she would move into private rented accommodation.
On 9 February 2022 the resident submitted a formal complaint. She advised:
1. neither the landlord nor the outgoing tenant had advised her about cladding at the time she carried out a mutual exchange.
2. 5 fire alarm were giving faulty alarms for the first 6 months which made her sick and cause her neurological pain.
3. after the cladding works began, she had written many emails advising how the drilling triggered the pain in her head.
4. she did not receive an application form for a transfer when she made a call at the beginning of works and when she was promised a form, a few months after emailing her Neighbourhood Manager, the envelope did not contain the form.
5. after the cladding was removed her property had no insulation for 14 months which had caused her electricity bill to increase from the use of her heaters.
On 11 February 2022 the landlord advised that it could not log a complaint as the cladding works were necessary for the maintenance and safety of the building, therefore was no service failure. It could not assist with heating costs as if the contractor had removed any insulation, this would have been necessary and essential to keep the building safe. The landlord advised that it was not sure what form the neighbourhood manager was going to send as the resident would first need to register of Homehunt (a national website for affordable housing) and that the Rehousing Team would then send application forms out.
On 18 May 2022, this service asked the landlord to register a formal complaint, noting that it had dealt with her complaint on 9 February 2022 as an enquiry not a complaint. This service asked the landlord to respond by 1 June 2022.
On 21 June 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint. It advised that:
1. its mutual exchange policy did not require it to inform an incoming tenant about major planned works to the exterior of a building. However, as cladding was a new issue, it would update the policy to ensure that major planned works likely to cause severe disruption would be disclosed to incoming tenants.
2. the resident had raised the issue of noise in February 2021, and it referred the matter to the managing agent. It had confirmed the hours of work permitted by the local authority. Therefore, it was satisfied with how the noise element was handled.
3. regarding the retro fire alarm going off for the first six months after it was installed, there were some sensor issues as the system was calibrated to the building, but it had responded each time the alarm had gone off.
4. with regard to the resident complaining that the property was cold from the removal of cladding, as the cladding was being removed, the new insulation material was being fitted so exposure to the weather would have been minimal. The scaffolding was also wrapped to provide additional protection from the weather.
5. It would offer compensation £200 which comprised:
  1. £150 for the delay in providing a Stage 1 response after the initial complaint was cancelled.
  2. £50 for the time the resident had spent chasing a response.
On receipt of the Stage 1 response the resident advised that she was unhappy with the outcome. The landlord asked the resident to provide clarification and to outline the outcome she wanted. There was an exchange of correspondence on 22 June 2022:
1. The landlord in response to the resident stating that it ignored her health condition, advised that when she contacted it on 3 August 2020 and 5 October 2021 to obtain moving advice, she did not mention health concerns.
2. The landlord advised that when the resident requested a move on medical grounds on 29 October 2021 it explained the process over the phone and sent a form to complete that day at 4.45pm. It explained that medical assessors are independent and aimed to assess a person’s housing requirement, which mostly related to mobility. The resident advised that the landlord did not respond to her initial transfer request, by sending documents by post in October 2020 or when she chased up the form; she only received the form by email in October 2021.
3. The landlord advised that it did not receive a returned medical form. It further stated that when the resident contacted it about her physical and mental health on 29 December 2020 it opened a safeguarding case, but the resident did not want any support, just for the noise to stop.
4. In response to the resident claiming that it should have stopped her mutual exchange due to knowledge about her health and upcoming works the landlord reminded her that she was responsible for deciding if the property was suitable for her.
5. In response to the resident asking that it should pay for increased electrical bills due to no insulation the landlord advised that no other resident had claimed energy bills had risen because cladding was removed therefore it could not justify making a payment towards her bill.
6. The resident advised of tension headache and neurological pain. The landlord stated that it was sorry to hear about the resident’s neurological condition but noted that works to replace the cladding would be completed the following month.
7. The landlord advised in response to the resident rejecting its compensation award clarified that the compensation was awarded for failures in the handling of her enquiries or complaint handling process, and the amount it had awarded was in line with its policies,
The landlord also agreed to escalate the complaint and on 22 July 2022, it sent the Stage 2 complaint response. It advised:
1. it sent notification letters to tenants affected by ending cladding works prior to the mutual exchange and was sorry that the outgoing tenant did not make this information available to her.
2. after the resident raised concerns about the works in February 2021, a response was sent to her confirming the project was undertaken with government approval and that all security, health, and safety risks were bring adhered to, as well as the times the contractors could work. It had to respond to government requests and guidelines as a matter of urgency.
3. when the resident contacted it in August 2020 about a transfer, she did not mention medical issues. It reiterated that when she contacted it in October 2021 it sent a medical assessment form on 29 October 2021. The resident had not returned the form therefore the Independent Medical Officer could not complete an assessment.
4. in respect of increased heating costs, on taking each section of cladding down, the contractor immediately fitted the external walls with new insulated materials to minimise the exposure of the building to elements. It also noted that energy costs were generally increasing therefore it would not reimburse her the same.
5. it was sorry that the resident’s heath deteriorated over time, but this was deemed to be a personal injury therefore she should contact the landlord’s insurance team to pursue the matter further. It also apologised that “this has not been a positive experience with Peabody and for the Neighbourhood Team initially cancelling the case”.
6. it offered compensation of £275 which comprised:
  1. £175 – Complaint Handling – delayed stage one due to incorrect cancellation. Stage one response should have been more detailed. The delayed response at Stage 2 of the process.
  2. £100 – Time, trouble and inconvenience taken to purse the matter.
The resident subsequently referred her complaint to this service. On 12 September 2022 the resident advised this Service, “they have not taken into account all the pain and distress they have put me in, when they ignored my needs for help at the start of the problems which started with the alarms issue, then the cladding removal. I was treated unfairly, ignored and suffered with pain that could have been avoided if I was heard in the first place. As a result of this, I am still suffering with neurological headache up to today”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of noise nuisance due to cladding works which started in October 2020

The resident has stated that she complained about noise at the start of the cladding works, in October 2020, and requested a transfer. However, there is no evidence that she raised concerns about noise at this time, or that she requested a transfer and/or a medical form on the basis of noise from the works.
There is evidence that the resident first raised concerns about the cladding works in February 2021, although her focus at this time was on health and safety, not noise. It was reasonable that the landlord referred her queries to the management agent as it had primary responsibility for the cladding works and was best placed to assure her that the works were necessary, had been planned in detail and complied with necessary health and safety standards. The landlord was copied into the correspondence therefore had oversight. The resident was advised of the permitted working hours therefore the landlord ensured that her expectations were managed in respect of when there may be noise.
However, from March 2021, the resident explicitly informed the landlord that her health was being detrimentally impacted by the works. The landlord evidently understood and accepted that the resident’s health and wellbeing may have been affected insofar as it agreed to send out a medical form, although the resident later stated that she did not receive a form at this time.
In her further correspondence from April 2021 the resident advised that she was increasingly affected and disturbed by the noise. She noted that she had been in regular contact with her GP and social services therefore now indicating that she was vulnerable. The landlord had a general responsibility to respond as there should be customer and stakeholder communications throughout works to address fire risk. It was particularly unreasonable that the landlord did not explore mitigations given the presenting vulnerability. This included assessing whether the resident’s circumstances merited a decant under its Decant Policy which recognises the possible need to “decant vulnerable tenants who would be negatively impacted by remaining in the property”.
The resident copied the freeholder into her correspondence. This service’s Spotlight Report on Landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents recommends the “Landlords should review their agreements [with managing agents and/or freeholders] to clarify roles and responsibilities for those buildings where the landlord itself is the leaseholder”. Regardless of any formal agreement, where the landlord is not the freeholder of the building, it should engage the freeholder or their managing agent to ensure it has as much information as possible to enable timely and comprehensive updates to residents. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord liaised effectively with the freeholder or managing agent about how best to respond to the resident’s further correspondence as would be expected.
The resident has stated in her complaint to the landlord and in her correspondence to this service that she made further reports of noise and requests for a medical form by phone; however, the landlord delayed in phoning her back and sending the form. The landlord has not provided evidence of these calls indicating that there may be shortcomings in its record keeping of phone contact. As a result, the extent of the delays cannot be ascertained. Nonetheless, it is evident that there were further delays by the landlord in responding. This is because the resident’s email of 29 September 2021 confirmed she had been pursuing a transfer request earlier. Moreover, it then took the landlord a full month to speak to her and send out a medical form.
This service notes the resident did not subsequently return a medical form. There is also no evidence that the landlord sent further emails or made further calls about the noise prior to submitting her formal complaint. However, this does not absolve the landlord of its earlier failures in dealing with her reports of noise from the cladding works.
The landlord’s response to reports of increased cold within the property due to the cladding being removed which has also resulted in increased energy bills.
This service notes that the resident’s utility bills have increased and her comments about the strain this is causing her. The landlord is not obliged to meet or contribute to the resident’s utility bills, nor did it make such a commitment because of the cladding works. This service has also considered guidance provided by Homes England on the Cladding Safety Scheme. This states, “They must take reasonable steps to minimise the impact on those living in the building and promote a liveable environment [throughout the remediation works]. This could include considering:
1. phasing of work
2. days / time of work
3. access to common spaces
4. maintaining ventilation and light
5. measures to mitigate noise
6. measures to increase privacy
7. site-security plans
The guidance does not make reference to landlords minimising the impact of increased heating costs. Ultimately, the landlord was not obliged to cover the resident’s increased heating costs nor was such a step recommended by the government.
However, where there has been a service failure by a landlord that directly causes financial impact, it can be appropriate for the landlord to reimburse the resident so that they are put back in the position they were in had the service failure not occurred. In this case, there is no clear timeframe for the replacement of cladding for individual properties. Furthermore, the landlord was not responsible for managing the contractor who was commissioned by the freeholder; its role was limited to representing the resident and pursuing her concerns on her behalf with the freeholder/managing agent. However, there is no evidence that the resident raised concerns about low temperatures in her property with the landlord at the time. Given that there was no evidence of service failure by the landlord in respect of coldness in the resident’s property arising from the cladding works, it was reasonable that it declined her request to contribute towards her electricity bills.

Complaint Handling

The resident initially submitted a formal complaint on 9 February 2022. Whilst the landlord promptly responded it did not accept a formal complaint. This service’s Complaint Handling Code at the time stated, “Landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action”. The resident had clearly raised concerns about previous actions of the landlord therefore it was inappropriate and contrary to the Code that the landlord did not raise a complaint. Ultimately, she contacted this Service in order for her complaint to be accepted by the landlord, thus experienced more time and trouble to pursue her complaint than otherwise should be the case.
There was further delay in the handling of the resident’s Stage 1 complaint insofar as this Service asked the landlord to send the response by 1 June 2022, within 10 working days; however, it was not until 21 June 2022, nearly three weeks later that the landlord responded.
After the resident responded to the Stage 1 complaint, there was an exchange of correspondence with the landlord. It is reasonable that landlords be flexible in their approaches to complaint handling if this produces a fairer outcome. In this case the landlord sought to confirm the reasons why the resident remained dissatisfied and took the opportunity to promptly answer points raised. This was reasonable as, as stated in the Code, “When a resident seeks to escalate a complain, the landlord should consider what the escalation review will be about i.e why the resident remains dissatisfied, and whether any part of the complaint has been resolved”. However, ultimately the resident remained dissatisfied therefore it was appropriate that the landlord formally escalated the complaint. The Stage 2 response was sent 2 days outside the required timeframe within the complaint procedure; however, the delay did not cause significant detriment.
Regarding the substance of the complaint responses, whilst it was reasonable that the landlord declined to contribute towards the resident’s utility bills, its explanation in its Stage 1 complaint response was misleading. It suggested that if there was evidence from other residents that bills had increased, there was a basis for it to contribute towards the resident’s utility bills. However, widespread rising bills, whether due to increased usage or unit costs, in itself did not create a responsibility for the landlord to contribute. Furthermore, by framing its argument around the bills of other residents, the landlord indicated that the resident’s electricity usage was exceptional and therefore that her individual circumstances could be disregarded. The flaw in the landlord’s response exacerbated her distress, in particular her perception that the landlord did not recognise her medical condition, as is evident from her complaint escalation.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
With regards to its complaint handling the landlord offered compensation £175. This exceeded the awards recommended within its Compensation Policy. The recommended awards are relatively low, therefore it was reasonable that the landlord exercised its discretion by awarding a higher amount. The award was intended to cover delays at both stages of the complaints procedure and shortcomings in the Stage 1 response, therefore it reflected the circumstances of the complaint. Taken together with the apologies that were provided the landlord offered compensation that provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

With regards to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance it offered £100 for her time, trouble and inconvenience. Ultimately there were delays by the landlord between March 2021 and the end of October 2021 in responding to the resident’s reports and dealing with her related request for a transfer. These delays were especially unreasonable given the resident’s vulnerabilities and exacerbated her increasing distress. The landlord’s award was in its lowest compensation band which was not reflective of the circumstances of the case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of noise nuisance due to cladding works which started in October 2020.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of increased cold within the property due to the cladding being removed which has also resulted in increased energy bills.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Reasons

There were delays by the landlord between March 2021 and the end of October 2021 in responding to the resident’s reports of noise and dealing with her related request for a transfer. It did not explore mitigations or liaise with the freeholder or managing agent about the resident’s concerns. These delays were especially unreasonable given the resident’s vulnerabilities and exacerbated her increasing distress.
There was no evidence of service failure by the landlord in respect of coldness in the resident’s property arising from the cladding works. Therefore, it was reasonable that it declined her request to contribute towards her electricity bills.
Whilst there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, it offered redress that was proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

With the next four week, the landlord is ordered to:
1. arrange for a senior member of staff to apologise to the resident for the failings in the landlord’s response to reports of noise nuisance due to cladding works which started in October 2020.
2. pay the resident £400 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its response to reports of noise nuisance. (This supersedes the £100 compensation offered within the complaints procedure. If the landlord has already paid this amount, it should pay the difference of £300).
3. pay the resident the £175 in respect of the failings in its complaint handling that was offered in the complaints procedure, if it has not already done so. This is because the finding of reasonable redress is contingent on the offer of £175 compensation.

Recommendation

It is recommended that:
1. the landlord completes this Service’s Self Assessment Guide that accompanies the Spotlight Report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholder and managing agents. This is available on this Service’s website. The landlord is requested to confirm its intentions in respect of this recommendation within the next four weeks.