The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202009234)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009234

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

30 March 2021


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. This complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise transference from neighbouring flats.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
    3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a Council. The tenancy commenced on 30 September 2019.
  2. The property is a flat located on the 2nd floor of a four storey, mid terrace converted house. There are 3 properties, including the resident’s flat, in the building. The landlord is the leaseholder of the resident’s flat but does not have a landlord or freeholder relationship with either of the other two flats, which are let and managed on behalf of the freeholder of the building.
  3. On 1 November 2019, the resident visited the landlord’s office to report that she was experiencing issues with the level of noise coming from the flat above hers. The resident’s report was logged and she was advised to speak to her Housing Officer, which she did the same day. The resident said she also complained about the level of noise to her Housing Officer when he visited her property on 5 November 2019 for a six-week tenancy check. The resident said that she also explained that she had been ‘‘forced to run away from her flat’’ because of the level of noise. No contemporaneous records of these conversations have been seen by this service.
  4. On 28 November 2019, the Community Mental HealthTeam (CMHT) wrote to the landlord expressing their concern about the resident’s current housing situation. The letter described how the tenant was ‘‘forced to spend most of her days and most nights walking the streets to avoid the situation’’. The letter attributed the significant deterioration in the resident’s mental health to the level of noise in her current property and requested that the landlord consider rehousing the tenant as soon as possible. The letter from the CHMT does not describe the noise that the resident was experiencing.
  5. On 16 April 2020, the resident sent a letter to the Council’s Housing Nominations team asking for urgent assistance with rehousing. The resident said that there was a lack of sound proofing between her flat and the flat immediately above hers, which she said allowed any and all noises generated by the tenants above to be heard in her flat. The resident acknowledged that she may have become sensitized to noise nuisance over time and that it could also be the case that her mental health condition was also contributing to her noise sensitivity. However, the resident also said that ‘‘many tenants would find the continuous noise and the lack of sound proofing distressing’’. In her letter the resident also said that she had complained to the Environmental Health department but they had declined to take any action. The letter to the Council was copied to the landlord’s Housing Neighbourhood team.
  6. On 6 May 2020, the Council’s Housing Nominations team emailed the resident advising her that her request to join its Housing Register was rejected because noise and anti-social behaviour were considered environmental issues and needed to be pursued with her landlord’s Housing Management Team. The Council’s Housing Nominations team said that they had emailed the landlord on 21 April 2020 and sent a reminder that day.
  7. On 11 May 2020, the CHMT emailed the landlord to complain on behalf of the resident that there had been no response to its concerns about the level of noise in the resident’s property and its request for the resident to be re-housed, which it submitted to the landlord on 28 November 2019. The email explained that the resident had been spending long periods of time outside of her property due to the noise becoming ‘‘unbearable’’ and that she had reporting self-harming as a coping mechanism. The email also said that no one from the landlord had been to the flat to investigate or to seek an alternative solution to the resident’s concerns.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 May 2020.
  9. On 2 June 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that more time was needed to complete its investigation and so it would not be able to provide a full response until 11 June 2020. On 12 June 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it again needed more time to complete its investigations and therefore would not be able to provide a full response until 17 June 2020.
  10. On 15 June 2020, the resident spoke with her Neighbourhood officer. In a later internal email, the Neighbourhood officer said that the resident explained how the noise was affecting her and that she no longer wanted to live in the property. The Neighbourhood officer said the possibility of a mutual exchange was also discussed. No records of the conversation have been provided and the email from the Neighbourhood officer provides no details of what the resident said about the noise during their conversation.
  11. The landlord issued its Stage 1 response on 17 June 2020. The landlord thanked the resident for agreeing to have noise recording equipment installed in her property but acknowledged that it should have been installed earlier. The landlord said that once it had obtained some recordings from the equipment it would contact the freeholder of the building and may ask them to look into whether there was adequate underlay in the flat above and that the flooring was sound insulated. The landlord said that ‘‘with adequate flooring and underlay that the situation may be a lot better’’.
  12. The landlord also recognised that even if the situation were resolved the resident no longer wanted to live at the property and so said it would continue to help her to move somewhere suitable. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s request for a Housing Management Transfer was being treated as a priority and it had already begun looking at potential mutual exchange properties. The landlord said that it was not ruling out a Housing Management transfer, but a mutual exchange with another tenant may progress faster.
  13. On 18 June 2020, the landlord emailed the resident advising that it would contact her the following week (22 to 26 June 2020) to arrange to visit and install sound monitoring equipment.
  14. 20 June 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord asking that her complaint be escalated to Stage 2. The resident said she remained dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken the landlord to issue its Stage 1 response. The resident also said that the landlord had not acknowledged the significance of the impact the noise was having on her or the number of times she or those supporting her had had to chase the landlord for a response. The resident explained that not only could she hear noise from the flat above but that she could also hear her neighbour below snoring. The resident also described noise from the communal stairway, including the opening and closing of doors and noise from an exhaust chimney from the restaurant below that was immediately outside her window. The resident questioned how the landlord could state that adequate flooring and underlay would improve the issue without having viewed the property or seeking expert advice from a suitably qualified specialist in building sound insulation.
  15. The landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her escalation request on 29 June 2020. The landlord also spoke to the resident on the same day and noted that the outcome the resident was seeking was a transfer to another property where she could feel safe.
  16. On 13 July 2020, the adaption officer, who had been supporting the resident, sent an email asking why the tenant had not been contacted regarding the installation of the noise monitoring equipment. The email also asked the Complaints team when the stage 2 response could be expected.
  17. On 15 July 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it needed more time to investigate the resident’s complaint and that it would send its response by 17 July 2020.
  18. The sound monitoring equipment was installed on 21 July 2020.
  19. On 22 July 2020, the landlord’s Customer Experience Manager and Neighbourhood Manager met with the resident. The landlord said that the aim of the meeting was to gain an understanding of, and to seek to find a remedy to, the issues the resident had been experiencing. No minutes were taken of the meeting. However, the resident said that it had been agreed for her to make an audio recording of the meeting. The resident said that towards the end of the meeting she was asked for a copy of two forms of identification. The resident later said that she understood that the two documents meant that the landlord now had all of the documentation needed to approve and move forward with a Housing Management transfer.
  20. The landlord issued its Stage 2 response on 29 July 2020. The landlord acknowledged that there was a 12 day delay in it providing its Stage 1 response, explaining that this was due to the complexity of the resident’s case and that a member of staff had been on annual leave. The landlord acknowledged that there had been failings in its service which had had an impact on the resident but that it was now confident that it was ‘‘on track’’ with addressing the concerns she had raised. The landlord said that whilst its focus would be on supporting the resident to move, it would continue to monitor the noise in the resident flat and would be arranging an independent sound test to take place to ensure that the property met building regulations. The landlord also acknowledged that minutes had not been taken during its meeting with the resident on 22 July 2020 and confirmed that it had reminded its staff that once any meeting takes place, minutes must be taken and distributed to all stakeholders so if there is a discrepancy it can be resolved early.
  21. On 3 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord for confirmation as to who should respond to complaints at Stage 2 and Stage 3 as the landlord’s complaints policy states that any escalation to stage 3 would be dealt with by the Chief Executive’s office, and not the Executive Director of Housing as stated in the landlord’s Stage 2 response. The landlord responded on 10 August 2020 to confirm that its Customer Experience manager would be investigating her Stage 2 complaint on behalf of its Housing Director.
  22. On 11 August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to request that her complaint be escalated to Stage 3 of the landlord’s formal complaints process. The resident said that the landlord had not taken steps to address the root cause of the problem and had failed to adequately acknowledge the impact of its poor complaint handling on her wellbeing. The resident also said that the landlord had not been clear about timescales for implementing what it had agreed to do or about whether it would be offering any compensation for its acknowledged service failures.
  23. The landlord issued its final, Stage 3, response on 2 September 2020. The response was provided by the landlord’s Corporate Complaints Manager. The landlord said that it believed there had been a ‘‘genuine desire’’ to listen to, understand and commitment to making changes to put things right. The landlord acknowledged that there had been poor communication, that its responses did not cover the resident’s concerns in enough depth and that the degree and extent of the problems, and impact these had on the resident, was not fully reflected in its response. The landlord said that it was ‘‘deeply saddened and sorry’’ to hear how this had affected the resident.  The landlord also agreed that the noise monitoring equipment could have been installed earlier and confirmed that it would  arrange for an independent sound test to take place to ensure that the property meets building regulations, the results of which it would discuss with the freeholder.
  24. The landlord confirmed that a decision about her Housing Management transfer was not reached until late May/June 2020, six months after the request. The landlord acknowledged that this was too long and said that as a result it would cover removal costs when the resident moves to a new property. The landlord also noted that the Council had also awarded the resident 2,000 points on its Housing Register, which was the maximum number of points that the Council could award, and that the resident was now able to bid for properties.
  25. The landlord also agreed to pay the resident £900 compensation for its acknowledged service failures, made up as follows:
  1. £600 for failing to act on the referral sent by the CMHT in November 2019; and the opportunities the resident missed because of this (£100 x 6 months)
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the poor handling of her case and the impact on her wellbeing.
  3. £100 for the repeated poor communication which resulted in the resident unnecessarily having to pursue her concerns.
  1. The landlord also confirmed that its Housing Management Complaints Policy would be updated by no later than 27 November 2020 to reflect the correct process for escalation; i.e. that Stage 3 complaints are investigated and responded to by the Corporate Complaints Team.
  2. On 24 September 2020, the  independent sound tests were carried out at the resident’s property, and concluded that the property did not comply with the standards set out in Building Regulations Approved Document E. The report made a number of recommendations to bring the property up to modern standards but also stated that it should be noted that any building constructed or converted prior to 2003 does not need to meet the standards set out in today’s Building Regulations Approved Document E. keeping noise to a minimum.
  3. The landlord provided the resident with a follow up response on 24 September 2020. The landlord said that whilst it was not the freeholder of the property, it would discuss the results of the independent sound tests with both the resident and the freeholder. The landlord also confirmed that the resident’s management transfer was approved on 17 June 2020, based on the information it had received in January 2020. The landlord said that the delay was attributed to officer oversight which it apologised for.
  4. The landlord also provided the resident with an update following its Neighbourhood services review of the learning points from the resident’s complaint. The landlord said that its process for the installation of noise monitoring equipment had been reviewed and in cases where there are levels of vulnerability, this should be identified and considered as a key factor in the prioritisation of the placement of equipment. The landlord also explained that where a vulnerability is identified in the future it would recommend and explain the work of the Tenancy Support Sustainment Team to all residents during the initial stages of interaction. It also said that it would make it a requirement to contact the resident or their representatives systematically, to request a ‘‘real time’’ account of the current position and that steps had been taken to ensure the quality of case recording to ensure that information is accurate, available and contemporaneous. The landlord said that this would include the auditing of case records to ensure that all relevant information is documented.

Assessment and findings

  1. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we considered both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We may refer to a landlord’s own remedies policy and any other relevant guidance when considering whether the steps that the landlord took to resolve the complaint were reasonable.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise transference from neighbouring flats.

  1. The landlord is the leaseholder of the flat rented by the resident. As a leaseholder the landlord would normally be responsible for internal repairs and decorations to the flat with the freehold being responsible for the structure of the building. It is unclear whether the flats above and below the resident’s flat were rented by the freeholder or held under leasehold by another party. Regardless the landlord would not be responsible for the repairs or maintenance in those properties as it was neither the freeholder of the building nor did it manage the tenancies or leases of any other property within the building.
  2. The resident first reported her concerns to her Housing Officer about the level of noise from the flat above  on 1 November 2019. The resident again raised her concerns about the level of noise in her property and the impact it was having on her when the Housing Officer visited her property on 5 November 2019 for a six-week tenancy check. However, there is no evidence that the Housing Officer took any actions to investigate the noise that the resident reported at that time.
  3. Whilst it is unclear exactly how much information the landlord had about the resident’s vulnerabilities prior to the CMHT letters, the landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health concerns and the serious impact the noise was having on her when the CMHT sent its first letter as early as 28 November 2019. However, there is no evidence of the landlord taking any action to investigate concerns raised about the level of noise and the impact it was having on the resident in response to the CHMT letter.
  4. Despite further contact from the resident on 13 March 2020 and two further letters from CMHT on 11 May and 27 May 2020, again expressing their concern about the landlord’s lack of response and the impact of the noise on the resident’s mental health, there is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to investigate or address the resident’s concerns.
  5. Between 16 April and 6 May 2020, the resident contacted Environmental Health and the Council, copying the landlord into her letter of 16 April 2020, to the Council, in which she mentioned Environmental Health declining to take any action in response to her reports about the level of noise transference in the property. In an email to the resident on 6 May 2020, the Council also said that it had advised the landlord on 21 April 2020 that Environmental Health had said that noise and anti-social behaviour were considered environmental issues and needed to be pursued with her landlord’s Housing Management Team. Again, there is no evidence of any action being taken by the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports at that time.
  6. The first evidence of the landlord formally responding to the resident’s reports was not until 15 June 2020 when the resident’s neighbourhood officer spoke to her about how the noise was affecting her, some six months after the resident’s first reports.
  7. In its Stage 1 complaint response, on 17 June 2020, the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for its failure to investigate or respond appropriately to her reports. The landlord also acknowledged that it should have explored other options to resolve the noise nuisance earlier on in the case, including the installation of noise recording equipment. As the landlord was not responsible for the repairs to the flat above, it was appropriate for it to go on to say that once it had gathered some evidence, in the form of sound recordings, it would approach the freeholder about whether there was adequate underlay in the flooring and whether the floor was sound insulated.
  8. Despite the landlord being chased by both the resident and its own adaptations officer, the sound equipment was not installed until 21 July 2020, over a month after the landlord’s stage 1 response and 8 months after the resident had first reported her concerns. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this delay.
  9. An inspection by a specialist sound specialist was first raised by the resident on 20 June 2020, prior to the sound equipment being installed. The landlord confirmed that it would arrange an independent sound test in its Stage 2 response on 29 July 2020. This was a reasonable approach given that the landlord was not responsible for the structure of the building and would need to have evidence to substantiate any concerns it might take to the freeholder. However, there were again delays in this being carried out. The test not being carried out until 24 September 2020. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this delay.
  10. In its final response the landlord acknowledged its failure to respond in a timely manner to the resident’s reports. Given the landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health concerns and the impact the noise was having on her, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise ‘‘profusely’’ for its failure to act in accordance with its policies and procedures, and for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her case.
  11. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for its acknowledged service failure. The compensation the landlord offered has been considered as part of landlord’s overall complaint handling.
  12. The landlord not only demonstrated that it had identified why things had gone wrong but also that it had taken steps to identify any learning from its findings and communicated these to the resident. 
  13. In its final response the landlord said that it’s Neighbourhood services team would meet to discuss learning from the resident’s complaint. On 24 September 2020, the landlord provided the resident with an update on those discussions. The landlord confirmed that its process for the installation of noise monitoring equipment had been reviewed to include the identification of vulnerability as a key factor for the prioritisation of the placement of equipment. The landlord also said that, in relation to vulnerable residents, it would now contact the resident or their representative on a ‘real time‘ basis and that the work of its tenancy support sustainment team would be discussed with all residents at the start of any interaction.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

  1. The Council’s Allocation scheme is run in accordance with Section 166A Housing Act 1996 and defines priorities and procedure to be followed in allocating housing accommodation; framed to ensure that reasonable preference is given to a number of defined groups. Once an applicant is awarded a priority for rehousing, it is expected that they will actively seek accommodation using the Council’s choice-based lettings system. A direct offer of suitable housing may be made to any applicant on the Housing Register at any time, ordinarily in accordance with priority and priority date order.
  2. Landlord’s Management Transfer Process policy states that Management Transfers are used to prioritise moves for tenants who need to move for a number of reasons including severe medical conditions.
  3. The policy goes on to state that residents who are awarded Management Transfer Status will be prioritised on the Council’s Allocation Scheme as: Serious Risk of Harm, Emergency Medical or Exceptional Priority cases giving them a very high priority for rehousing. Tenants would be added to the Housing Register; the Council would be able to make them direct officers of Council Properties and they would also be able to bid for Housing Association properties.
  4. The landlord’s Management Transfer Process policy clearly states the Management Transfer Form (MTF) is to be completed and ready to be reviewed within five working of receiving it and all supporting documentation. The CMHT submitted its original request for the resident to be offered a transfer on 28 November 2019.  There is no evidence of the landlord taking any steps to consider the request at that time it is also unclear at what point the resident’s Neighbourhood officer completed the MTF.
  5. It is also unclear when the completed MTF was ready to be reviewed by the Head of Service. The landlord’s Management Transfer Process policy states that this should be within five working of the request and supporting documentation being receiving. What is clear is that despite what the landlord described as ‘‘continued’’ attempts by both the resident and the CHMT to chase the landlord’s response, six months later, on 27 May 2020 the landlord said that it was still awaiting approval.
  6. In its final response the landlord confirmed that a decision about the resident’s transfer was not reached until late May/June 2020. In its letter to the resident on 24 September 2020, the landlord provided the resident with a further explanation of the decision making process. The landlord confirmed that the management transfer was approved on 17 June 2020, based on the information it had received in January 2020. The landlord said that the delay was attributed to officer oversight which it apologised for.
  7. Given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health issues and the impact the situation with the noise nuisance was having on her, the delay in the landlord processing the resident’s request for a housing transfer represents a significant service failure. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that it had taken too long to respond to the resident’s request for a Management Transfer. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer to cover the removal costs when the resident moved and compensation for its acknowledged service failure.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

  1. The landlord has a three stage formal complaints policy. The policy states that:
    1. Stage 1 responses will be issued no later than 15 working days from the date the complaint was received.
    2. Stage 2 – The Director of Housing Management will review the case and the landlord’s Stage 1 response, and a full reply setting out their findings will be sent within 15 working days unless an alternative date is agreed.
    3. Stage 3 – The landlord’s Chief Executive will review the complaint and the responses at the previous stages and will write to the complainant setting out their findings within 15 working days. The response will advise the resident of the next steps available to them such as a referral to the relevant Ombudsman Service.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, sent on her behalf by the CMHT on 11 May 2020, two days later on 13 May 2020. According to the landlord’s complaints policy the landlord should have issued its response no later than 3 June 2020. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident on 2 June 2020 to explain that it needed more time to investigate her complaint. The landlord said that it would provide a response by 11 June 2020. On 12 June 2020, the landlord again wrote to the resident to explain that it needed further time to investigate and would provide a response until 17 June 2020, which it did.
  3. Whilst the landlord’s response exceeded the 15 working day target, given the complexity of the resident’s complaint and that the landlord kept the resident up to date with the progress and any delays in its response, the delay of 10 working days in the landlord issuing its Stage 1 response was not unreasonable.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 June 2020 requesting that her complaint be escalated to Stage 2 of the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. The landlord issued its response 29 July 2020, this was 32 days longer than the timescale given in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord explained that the delay was again due to the complexity of the case and on that a member of staff had been on annual leave. Whilst the landlord had not responded to the resident’s complaints, during this time, it installed the sound monitoring equipment, on 21 July 2020, and met with the resident to discuss her complaint on 22 July 2020.
  5. On 11 August 2020, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to Stage 3. The landlord issued its extensive final response on 2 September 2020. In its response, acknowledged and apologised for its service failures and advised that it would send the resident a further letter no later than 25 September 2020 providing further explanation for what lead to those failures and what steps it had taken to prevent such failures happening in the future. The landlord did what it had agreed to do, providing the promised response on 24 September 2020.
  6. In addition to the delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, the resident has also complained that the landlord did not follow its complaints policy in relation to who should respond at each stage of the complaint. This was acknowledged by the landlord which agreed to update its Complaints Policy, no later than 27 November 2020, to reflect the correct escalation process with regards to Stage 3 complaints. A recommendation has been included in this report for the landlord confirm that this has now been done.
  7. The landlord’s Compensation and Redress Policy states that it will consider all claims for compensation where it has failed to deliver services appropriately or to the agreed standard. The policy goes on to stage that each claim will be individually assessed and the circumstances of the claim taken into account including distress, time and trouble. The maximum level of compensation allowed for in the landlord’s Compensation and Redress policy is up to £1,000.
  1. In its final response, the landlord offered the resident £900 compensation for its acknowledged service failures, made up as follows:
  2. £600 for failing to act on the referral sent by the CMHT in November 2019; and the opportunities the resident missed because of this (£100 x 6 months)
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the poor handling of her case and the impact on her wellbeing.
  4. £100 for the repeated poor communication which resulted in the resident unnecessarily having to pursue her concerns.
  1. The landlord also offered to cover the removal costs when the resident moved.
  2. The landlord’s offer of a total of £900 compensation and its offer to cover the resident’s removal cost when she moves reflects the gravity of the impact the delays had on the resident, with the compensation amount being close to the maximum amount the landlord may offer, in accordance with its compensation policy. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance also states that awards of compensation in excess of £750 should be considered in recognition of maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the flat above hers.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of complaint handling failures.

Reasons

  1. The landlord upheld all the elements of the resident’s complaint and apologised ‘‘profusely’’ for its failure to respond appropriately to both the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and her request for rehousing the resident’s.
  2. Whilst the landlord did not provide a breakdown of its offer of £900 in relation to each element of the resident’s complaint, the overall level of compensation offered provides reasonable redress to the resident, reflecting the seriousness of the landlord’s acknowledged failures.
  3. With regards to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, in addition to compensation, the landlord also arranged for an independent sound test to be carried out at the resident property, dependent on outcome of which, the landlord said it would discuss with both the resident and the freeholder of the property.
  4. With regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing, in addition to compensation, the landlord also said that it would cover the removal costs when the resident moved.
  5. In its response of 23 September the landlord also confirmed what steps it had taken to improve its processes to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future.
  6. With regards to the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord took onboard the comments made by the resident regarding who should respond at each stage of the complaint and agreed to update its Complaints Policy, no later than 27 November 2020, to reflect the correct escalation process with regards to Stage 3 complaints.

Recommendations

  1. That within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, and if it has not done so already, the landlord is to pay the resident the £900 compensation offered in its final response.
  2. That within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to write to both the resident and this service to confirm:
    1. What action it has taken in response to the independent sound tests carried out at the resident’s property on 24 September 2020, and if the test results have been discussed with the Freeholder what the outcome of those discussions was.
    2. That its Complaints Policy has been updated, which in its response of 24 September 2020 the landlord said would be done no later than 27 November 2020, to reflect the correct escalation process with regards to Stage 3 complaints
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within 6 weeks of the date of this determination to confirm what actions it has taken in response to the above recommendations.