Southern Housing Group Limited (202230319)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230319

Southern Housing Group Limited

30 April 2024

(amended)

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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
  1. Noise from a water pump.
  2. Repairs to her back door.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied her property under an assured tenancy which began in 30 October 2017, with her son who, the resident reported, was diagnosed with autism, ODD, and ADHD.

Legal and policy framework

Section 79 (1)(g) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides that noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance constitute a statutory nuisance.
In addition, under Section 9a of the Housing Act 1985 “the Act”), the landlord has an obligation that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to prescribed hazards set out in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which includes noise and freedom from damp.
The landlord is expected to meet the home standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing including that it meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing. Under the HHSRS, introduced by the Housing Act 2004, it is a general principle that any dwelling should provide adequate protection from all potential hazards prevailing in the local external environment, including noise. This category covers threats to physical and mental health resulting from exposure to noise inside the dwelling or within its curtilage. While a resident has recourse under the Act if they wish to take legal action, the local authority is responsible for monitoring and enforcing the HHSRS standards.
Under its lettings policy, it could offer a management move to one of its homes, in limited circumstances and subject to availability. The grounds for moving, which should be evidenced, would be domestic abuse, witness protection, anti-social behaviour/severe harassment, significant personal tragedy where it is unreasonable for the household to remain in the home, rehoused to release a property which it considered to be rare or special e.g. adapted home, supported home, medical needs, including mental health, which make the home inaccessible and unusable.

Chronology

The Noise

On 24 August 2022, the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) of the local authority wrote to the landlord as follows:
1. It had received a report the resident about noise that originated from the water pump room which was located below her flat. The room was not the landlord’s responsibility.
2. It had, in the past, contacted the organisation responsible for the water pump room. They had carried out some works, about 3 years ago, involving laying carpet and underlay in the flat above and at their own expense. They had provided some acoustic insulation at the louvre vents where the majority of the noise seems to originate. Acoustic equipment had been installed in the flat and “clearly” showed a significant impact of the on/off switching of the pumps, occurring 24/7.
3. Given the further report, it required the landlord to take steps. It could serve Abatement Notices to ensure the work is carried out effectively.
The landlord replied the next day, stating it would reply to the EHO by 2 September 2022. The EHO chased the landlord on 9 September 2022.
On 4 October 2022, the EHO served a notice under section 79/80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990), requiring the landlord to abate the nuisance within 12 weeks. The covering letter stated that, as a result of a noise recorder in May and June 2022, there was evidence of significant noise entering the flat above from the water pump room.
On 22 November 2022, there followed a number of internal enquiries and to its contractor, which continued to the beginning of January 2023 as follows:
1. It established that the freeholder was responsible for the pump.
2. It referred the EHO letter to its legal team. It had logged the notice on its internal “legal register”.
3. The notice concerned the same flat as in 2018. The contractor had quoted for carpets and underlay to whole property back in 2018 due to the noise.
4. It considered what records it had: some works were carried out in 2018, emails were only saved for 2 years, any correspondence would be located in specific folders and with other teams. The actions from 2018 were also recorded on its case management system. The complaint was about noisy pipes/leak and was raised not long after the resident had moved in. Various different options were explored. The resident requested carpets with insulation to reduce the noise. The landlord contacted the freeholder who agreed to undertake works to the plant and plant room. It believed at the time that this would resolve the issues raised.
On 11 January 2023, the resident made a complaint by phone to the landlord, recorded as follows:
1. Noise and the landlord’s lack of communication. She had been reporting water pump noise issue for months. She was promised call backs, but nothing happened. This had been raised as a service failure in September 2022, but there had still been no communication since. The noise was affecting her mental health and she felt suicidal.
2. The back door had still not been fixed. It had been surveyed several times and the day before a contractor took more pictures but “nothing happens”. She had sent videos. She was getting damp and mould which was affecting her asthma.
On 26 January 2023, the landlord wrote to the freeholder as follows:
1. It referred to the EPA 1990 notice and the threat of prosecution of both the landlord and the freeholder. It had until 31 January 2023 to abate the noise.
2. It suggested discussing a way forward.
On the same day, the landlord extended its complaint response timescale as it was “awaiting clarification from (its) contractors regarding the outstanding works to the rear door, as well as further information from its Legal Team and Reinvestment Teams in relation to the noise from the pump room”.
The landlord extended the time for it to respond again to 3 February 2023. It would attend the property with its surveyor, the freeholder and the EHO, in order to investigate further.
On 10 February 2023, the landlord responded with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. The complaint was about:
  1. Noise coming from the water pump.
  2. The resident had not received any call backs or contact from “anybody regarding this”.
  3. The constant noise was affecting her mental health.
  4. Repairs required to her rear door had not been carried out.
  5. She wanted the pump noise issues resolved and for the rear door to be repaired.
2. It apologised for the ongoing issues and the lack of communication.
3. Its surveyor attended the property on 3 February 2023 with the freeholder and EHO. It agreed to look into blocking up the 2 vents in the water pump room. It would be liaising with its contractor.
4. It had had to liaise with the freeholder on the noise of the pump.
5. The rear entrance door was not a standard design and therefore had caused issues with multiple operatives and supervisors attending to work out a plan of action.
6. The contractor measured up for a new rear door on 3 February 2023. It had been ordered and should be received from the supplier within 5-6 weeks.
7. The level of service was unacceptable.
8. It had not responded to her complaint by the initial agreed date. It was waiting to collate the information.
9. It offered £350, consisting £270 for inconvenience, time and trouble, £15 in relation to its failure to return phone calls, £15 for repeat visits to resolve outstanding issues and £50 for its complaint handling.
10. “Feedback had been given to all involved parties and teams and it was working on making this aspect of its repairs process simpler and smoother.”
On 11 February 2023, the resident replied stating the issues had not been resolved. The rear back door had not been fixed. The level of compensation was “insulting”, given the issues had been continuing for four years. The noise was going off “24/7” every 15 minutes lasting 3-4 minutes. This had caused a huge impact on her mental health, due to sleep deprivation. She had been chasing a repair to the door for one year and had chased 37 times. It had caused damp and mould, and she had asthma.
A works order dated 21 February 2023 showed a job was raised to investigate the cause of the noise and possible remedial works. It considered that the open louvre vents were the issue and soundproofing would not assist.
The resident wrote on 26 and 27 February 2023. She requested to escalate the complaint and a move. The property was “freezing” due to the gaps in the back door.
On 3 March 2023, she registered on “home swappers”.
The resident chased again on 16, 17 and 23 March 2023.
On 16 March 2023 the landlord wrote that she had been told that the door replacement would take 5-6 weeks. It had set out its actions regarding the noise in its response 10 February 2023. It provided its housing options booklet and stated it was unable to offer internal transfers.
On 23 March 2023, the freeholder wrote to the EHO, with a copy to the landlord as follows:
1. It had discussed the lack of ventilation in the pump room. If the water in the tank got too warm, it could cause E-coli or legionnaires “problems”.
2. It suggested moving the existing metal louvre vents to another wall which would then get ventilation from the car park side, which was a cool area. It would block up the external areas and then open up the other wall.
3. It suggested that the landlord obtain a quote for these works.
On 23 March 2023, the landlord requested a quote from its contractors to open up the car park wall and installing metal louvre vents. It noted on 4 April 2023 that the freeholder was “not keen” on the sound proofing option due to the possible extensive costs and lack of ventilation.
On 10 April 2023, the resident chased again. The evidence showed the landlord was still exploring the options and costs.
On 9 May 2023, the contractor provided estimates for the sound proofing and noted the high cost. It could not seal the vents due to health and safety risks. It had installed a sealed UPVC window and door, which would reduce noise. It could fit acoustic glass for the new door and window. It suggested a decibel and vibration test.
On 17 May 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 complaint as follows:
1. The complaint was about: the landlord had still not been able to resolve the noise issues from the pump room. She had been living with the noise for five and a half years. Her son has ADHD, ODD and Autism. This made looking after him harder due to the lack of sleep the noise was causing. She was seeking around £5,000 to £7,000.
2. It was working with its contractor, EHO and freeholder to find a practical solution. The options were currently under review. It had been unable to block the current air vents.
3. It was looking at sound proofing the water pump room, moving the existing air vents, installing a dampened system or installing acoustic glass in the flat.
4. It was also going to carry out an up-to-date decibel test following the recent install of the new balcony door and side window.
5. The work fitting the door had caused dust and dirt to fall onto her sofa which had not been covered. The contractor had been unable to determine whether the dust on the sofa was linked to the work that took place. Any damage would need to be claimed through her own home contents insurance.
6. It had carried out repairs to the door as and when they were reported. It was not felt it needed to be replaced at those times. It was not offering compensation relating to this.
7. In relation to this affecting her mental health so significantly, it refer her to its Housing Team to offer additional support.
8. It attached its Housing Options booklet regarding moving home by way of exchange, an application to the local authority and the private rented sector.
9. It apologised again for the lack of call backs and delays. It included an “action plan” together with the target completion dates which consisted of a phone call from its surveyor’s team regarding an update on pump room noise solution on 19 May 2023. It provided his direct contact details.
10. It increased its offer of compensation from £350 to £690 consisting of: £600 for inconvenience, time and trouble, £50 for unsatisfactory complaint handling, £15 failure to follow process, £15 failure to call back, £10 for the delay in providing the Stage 2 response.
11. It enclosed an acceptance form for compensation marked “Without Prejudice”.
On 17 and 22 May 2023, the resident replied as follows:
1. The door was defective as evidenced by the number of repairs, water coming in and the damp and mould.
2. The offer of £690 was “insulting”.
3. The landlord had a management move team which could assist her.
4. There was “clearly something wrong” with the water noise pumps, as they could not be switched off. The landlord had not soundproofed that room.
5. She did not have household insurance.
6. She wanted a professional clean as the contractor had not covered the sofa.
The landlord wrote on 23 May 2023 as follows:
1. It had 5 working days to respond to emails.
2. It was aware of the impact the noise was having. It was working together to find a positive outcome.
3. It was unable to rehouse her directly.
On 13 October 2023, an acoustic survey took place as follows:
1. The noise seemed not to be coming from the pump room itself, but from the pipework in the walls and explained why this was the case. The pump room seemed to be adequately acoustically isolated. The only solution to this problem would be quite extensive, to increase the amount of, or possibly drastically increase the specification of the wall insulation inside the property and pipe lagging.
2. Pipe lagging would probably be the single most important part of any remedial works and in the larger spans of wall space.
3. The sound did not seem to come from the floor or ceiling, nor did she report this. There was not anything that could be done within the pump room itself aside from lowering the pressure in the pipes feeding into the property.
4. It was very difficult to determine from this kind of survey, whether the sound was coming directly from the pump room via any other means than the pipes. The sound appeared to be water rushing through the pipes, rather than the pump itself. The fact that the sound could also be heard in the living room could mean that the current issue was more linked to the construction of the building itself, as opposed to the pump room located under the resident’s property.
The landlord reported on 23 February 2024 that it had spoken to the contractor who was speaking to the acoustic expert for a further update, noise test and specification.
On 24 February 2024, the landlord informed this Service as follows:
1. There was no record of an update to the resident on 19 May 2023.
2. The most recent position was that that its maintenance Surveyor were overseeing works with council and managing agents.
On 27 April 2024, the EHO informed this service as follows:
1. It had e-mailed both the landlord and the freeholder on 9 February 2024 but had not received a response.
2. It had received the survey on 14 November 2023. It had concluded that the consultant did not know what the source of the noise was. It did not appear to have involved accessing the resident’s flat to assess the noise which would have been essential.
3. It had not heard further from the landlord.
4. The landlord merger had complicated matters and it was preparing to serve fresh notices.
5. It was not aware of any works having been carried out to attenuate the noise.
6. A calibrated noise recorder was installed again (during January 2024) and appears to demonstrate noise consistent with when the Notices were served in 2022.
7. The intention was to enforce the 2 Notices in the event that they are not complied with.
At the time of this report, the landlord had not updated the Ombudsman further.

The door.

The landlord carried out the following repairs:
1. In August 2018, the door restrictor was overhauled. In January 2021, the resident reported gaps in the door. It replaced the weatherboard and cleaned mould. In March 2021 it replaced hinges. In July 2022, the door had dropped so could not close and there were large gaps. The resident requested a new door. The door was repaired the next day. On 25 October 2022, the contractor added a gasket and drip bar to stop water ingress. In December 2022 the resident reported mould due to the gaps.
2. On 10 January 2023, the contractor suggested no further repairs could be carried out. It queried the need for a new door on 25 January 2023. There were issues with the main frame, it had “an unusual drop down” and “all joint were blown”. The frame and door would be 2 separate items joined when installed by a steel joint strip. This was a special security joiner. A job was raised to fit the door on 30 January 2023.
The resident chased 28 March 2023. It was 8 weeks since the contractor’s visit. She reported mould in her front room and son’s bedroom. She did not feel the landlord was taking the issue seriously.
The landlord’s repair records noted on 29 March 2023 “gaps at bottom and top. Causing mould up walls”.
A new door and side window was installed on 18 April 2023.
On 13 May 2023, the resident chased the landlord. She reported that “the landlord fixed the back door but had only done half a job”.
A new door frame was fitted in August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this report:

The Housing Ombudsman cannot determine liability for damages, including claims for the impact a situation has had on someone’s health. It cannot assess medical evidence and does not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complaint by a particular service failure by a landlord.
The resident referred to the issue going back several years. The evidence showed that works had been carried out in 2018 which, according to the EHO’s evidence on 24 August 2022, brought about an improvement. The issue appeared to raise itself again in early 2022.
The landlord did not provide evidence of events prior to August 2022, however, the resident referred to previous reports, and the EHO referred to noise monitoring in May 2022. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that fresh reports began in April 2022. If the source of the noise was the pipes, not the pump, this may be consistent with the issue re-emerging, rather than having been continuous. Taking all of these factors into account, the Ombudsman considers it would be fair and proportionate to take into consideration events from the date of the resident’s fresh reports, in early 2022.

The Noise

There was an unreasonable delay following the resident’s reports in 2022 of the noise. There was no evidence of any steps being taken until the EHO wrote to the landlord in August 2022. There was then an inappropriate delay before the landlord responded to the EHO. It not only did not reply to the EHO’s email but there was a delay in responding to the EHO’s legal notice. It took the landlord 2 months to establish its position and facts and to respond to the EHO. This does not demonstrate that it was taking its legal obligations seriously, or its care towards the resident. While a landlord would not necessarily retain email correspondence, also due to its GDPR obligations, it seemed to lack internal records and relied on its contractor for information. This would present difficulties in evidencing its own actions. Given the enforcement powers of the EHO who only get involved in serious matters, the high bar of a statutory nuisance, it is particularly concerning that it took the landlord 5 months before it responded to the EHO.
It then took until February 2023 to attend the property to carry out an inspection. This was overall an inappropriate delay. The evidence showed that there followed discussions about how to resolve the issue and there were a number of technical difficulties, as well as significant costs, which as a not-for-profit social landlord being required to preserve public funds and consider its resources, the landlord was entitled to give consideration to. It was reasonable that the landlord commissioned an acoustic survey in May 2023 so as to ascertain the source of the noise. There had been an assumption that the source of the noise was the pump itself. This is something the landlord could have considered sooner, however, given the assumption was so widespread, fault is not significantly attributed to the landlord. However, there was then a significant and unexplained delay to obtaining that report.
While it indicated that the issue was not in relation to the pump room but the pipes, the October 2023 report was inconclusive and suggested further investigation. The evidence shows that none was carried out. There is no evidence that the issue has been resolved at the date of the report. Indeed, there is no evidence that the landlord has taken any steps at all.
It is concerning that there has been no progress in addressing what is a statutory nuisance, a high bar, and that has been having a significant impact on the resident.
In addition to the EHO finding a statutory nuisance, the resident had reported the impact the noise was having on her. This should have alerted the landlord to its duties under the HHSRS. There was no specific evidence that the resident was under a disability, however there were indications that she might be. A landlord should be mindful of its duties under the Equality Act 2010, including to make to make reasonable adjustments. It should also be mindful, should it be deemed to be a public body, that the noise may constitute an interference with her Article 8 rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, to live in her home without intrusion or interference.
Part of the resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s poor communication. Despite having acknowledged its lack of communication and providing assurances it would improve, there was then little by way of feedback and updates from the landlord.
The landlord offered £630 in relation to the delay to addressing the noise. It considered this was in line with the Ombudsman’s own guidelines. However, while the complaint response acknowledged the “inconvenience, time and trouble”, it did not address the history or the distress and the resident’s particular circumstances, a single mother, who had reported it was affecting her mental health and the care of her disabled child.
While the landlord did not consider the resident’s request for a move, this was a solution she proposed to the noise as it was affecting her mental health. While there was no evidence whether her need to move fitted the criteria for a management move, it was not reasonable that the landlord did not suggest she make such an application. The Ombudsman will make an order in that regard.
In the circumstances the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord offered reasonable redress. The issue, despite the seriousness, remains outstanding at the date of this report.

The back door

The evidence showed that the resident had been reporting issues with the back door. There was a gap in the repair reports between March 2021 to July 2022 at which point the resident reported that the door had dropped. The Ombudsman concludes that was when the particular issue of the door letting in wet and air began. The landlord was entitled to carry out repairs rather taken necessarily replace the door, to ensure its actions are cost effective. However, where a resident makes multiple reports, it is unreasonable not to consider a replacement. The findings in January 2023, indicated that the issues had been significant and had potentially been present for a few months. It was therefore unreasonable not to have considered a replacement sooner.
The landlord gave a timescale of 5-6 weeks from 3 February 2023. Again, there was no evidence of updates even though the timescale was exceeded. This had an adverse impact on the tenant and landlord relationship and gave her the impression of a lack of concern by the landlord. The evidence also showed that it was to have replaced both the door and the frame. This was not carried out until April and August 2023 respectively.
The resident reported that the works had caused damage to her sofa as it was not covered during the works. She was asking for a professional clean. It was disproportionate to refer her to insurers. Given the likelihood of dust falling in her sofa, given it was not covered, and the low cost of a clean, it was unreasonable not to consider a contribution to a clean.
The resident reported damp and mould in December 2022 because of the gaps in the door. While it had carried out a mould clean in 2021, there is no evidence that the landlord inspected the condition of the property, the damp and mould, whether caused by the door or not. This was unreasonable. The Ombudsman finds maladministration due to the overall delay in replacing the door, the lack of communication and the failure to inspect the internal property for damp and mould.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord made the decision to delay its Stage 1 response as it was awaiting feedback from the meeting of 3 February 2023. A preferred approach would be to respond, set out this plan and monitor the position. On hearing the impact on the resident, there was no evidence that the landlord considered a safeguarding report or offering a referral to the appropriate services. Indeed, there was no evidence that the landlord took on board the resident’s expression of vulnerability until its Stage 2 response.
The landlord attribution of the delays addressing the noise to the complexities was unreasonable and lacked transparency. There was evidence of the non-standard door causing delays. The delays were due, in part, to a lack of action in relation to the pump and to its decision making regarding replacing the door.
Its response of 16 March 2023 was unsatisfactory. The resident was requesting an update. The timescale of 5-6 weeks had all but passed. It did not explain why an internal move was not an option.
There was also a 2-month delay to the Stage 2 response. It was not clear why the landlord offered a lower amount for that delay. The response itself summarised the landlord’s steps to date and intended steps but, as noted, it did not consider the history of the complaint. It did not identify that the resident raised a move as a resolution or that she had reported damp and mould. The “action plan” consisted of one call from the surveyor. Even that the call was not made. There was no evidence that the complaints team monitored the case and the outcome. While its offer of £50 for the delay to the Stage 1 response was reasonable in itself, given the complaints process did not offer resolution, the Ombudsman finds maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from a water pump.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to her back door.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord acknowledged its poor communication issues and delays, there was no improvement and there has been no resolution to the noise issue.
The evidence showed that the landlord should have considered a door replacement sooner, there were further delays and issues of communication and it did not respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould due to the gaps in the door.
The complaints process did not provide a resolution to the resident’s complaint and there was no evidence that it had monitored the works.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 2 weeks of this report, the landlord should escalate the case to the appropriate senior Head of Team or Director in order to have oversight on this case. It should also work with the EHO as the EHO sees fit and ensure it is kept updated.
2. Within 2 weeks of this report, the landlord should offer to the resident that she can make an application for a management move. The landlord should offer support and guidance in making that application including what evidence as the landlord might require.
3. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay to the resident the sum of £2,860 to include the £690 already offered consisting of as follows:
  1. £1,470 in addition to the £630 already offered in relation to the noise complaint.
  2. £400 in relation to the back door to include a contribution to a clean to the sofa.
  3. £300 in addition to the £60 offered in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should commission a comprehensive inspection of the property in order to ascertain the causes of the noise. It should set out an action plan to carry out the recommended works within 8 weeks of the report. This report should be sent to the resident, the EHO and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks and confirmation they have been carried out within 8 weeks of this report.
5. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should inspect the property for damp and mould.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 8 weeks of this report.