Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202106885)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106885

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

4 November 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of soundproofing to the resident’s home.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a mid-terrace property, with neighbours on each side.
  2. The landlord has provided a timeline showing that the earliest reports by the resident of noise was on 13 March 2020. The resident complained about children banging up and down stairs, adults and children shouting and screaming and of a washing machine / tumble dryer being used late at night or in the early hours. The information provided by the landlord shows that the resident continued to make noise reports following March 2020, which the landlord investigated and concluded that, overall, they were not due to antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  3. A joint visit to the home of the resident on 5 October 2020 concluded in the offer of soundproofing as a potential solution to the noise. This offer was made at the time of the home visit by the property manager but it was not possible to move this forward with property services. No reasons for this are given nor is there any documentation to indicate if this information was conveyed to the resident.
  4. On 15 October 2020 in a telephone call, the resident said that the noise was getting worse, but no details are recorded.  However, as a result of this call, contact was made with the neighbours and this resulted in an agreement that they would not use their washing machine/tumble dryer between the hours of 10pm and 7am.
  5. Internal emails dated 19 November 2020 note that while the landlord believed the property met the building regulations at the time of construction, it nevertheless would look to carry out soundproofing work, but needed to wait for the current lockdown restrictions to end. One email noted that “Hopefully the EHO will accept that from a technical perspective, the home is built to the right standard. If not, we may well face a notice which may then require us to do the work anyway?” (EHO is taken to be a reference to the local authority’s environmental health department). One email queried whether the soundproofing was to go ahead, and asked for the resident and the local authority to be updated with any decision. No evidence of such updates has been provided.
  6. On 24 November 2020 the resident called the landlord to make a formal complaint regarding the lack of sound proofing in her walls. She said there had been a longstanding issue with noise from both sides for around two years which was affecting her whole family. She said there were a large number of people living in the neighbouring home, which contributed to the high noise levels.
  7. An internal email, dated 9 December 2020, states that the landlord was addressing the complaint and the noise reports. It acknowledged the impact claimed by the resident, but notes that none of the evidence suggested actual ASB was occurring, and that this had been explained to the resident, along with the types of evidence the landlord would need before taking “meaningful intervention with the neighbour.” The email referred to the landlord’s visit to the resident in October, and that one of the visiting officers was “going to look at the possibility of improving the sound proofing at the address because of the noise transference. Obviously because of Covid this hasn’t progressed beyond getting a quote – which has clearly frustrated [the resident] and resulted in this complaint.” It concluded that “resolution in this case is to get back to [the resident] with some idea on timescales for the sound proofing works and a commitment that we will be doing the work.”
  8. An internal email dated 11 January 2021 states that the resident called and asked for an update about her complaint. Another email later the same day states that the resident called again. She had said she was in the process of a mutual exchange (a process where one tenant exchanges homes with another tenant with the agreement of the landlords involved), and wanted to know if she should disclose the soundproofing work to the incoming tenant. She said she had asked this of one of the landlord’s officers and been told not to do so, as the work was being done specifically for the resident’s benefit, and might not be done for the new tenant. The resident was concerned about this because she had been told the problems lay with the walls being “too hollow”, and it was unfair not to inform the new tenant. She wanted an assurance that the soundproofing would be done regardless of the mutual exchange. She was also concerned because she did not want to be accused of not disclosing important information. The email states that the resident was told that “if a MEX is approved the incoming tenant would accept the property as is and advised to perhaps hold fire on saying anything in case there are any issues with the exchange.” The email asked that the officers responsible for both the works and the complaint contact the resident.
  9. No evidence of a complaint response, further contact or action has been provided, until 26 May 2021, when an internal email explained the resident had contacted the landlord. She had said she was upset that the soundproofing work “hasn’t been booked in.”. She felt that the landlord had asked her to “close the case on the basis this would be resolved and that was months ago.” She asked that her complaint be escalated.
  10. Another email, also on 26 May 2021, states that one of the landlord’s officers had “spoke to [the resident] advising works would be raised and scheduled after 12th April. [Officer] has copied me into emails chasing a date… and has been trying to get an update to provide the customer.”
  11. An internal email dated 27 May 2021 states that, having spoken to the resident, the landlord would be getting its sub-contractors to quote for the work to be done. It said that the resident was content with the resolution and for the complaint to be closed.
  12. The landlord sent its escalated complaint response to the resident on 27 May 2021. It referred to the telephone discussion it had with her earlier that day, and confirmed that it would carry out soundproofing works. It said its contractors would contact her to arrange a visit, and would make a quote for the work. It explained that its complaints process was now complete, and gave details for this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  13. An internal email dated 9 September 2021 from one of the landlord’s officers states “The quotes are now in and we are raising the works order to [contractor] who will be contacting the resident to arrange a date to carry out the work. When I spoke to the resident at the beginning of August…I did confirm to her that we needed further quotes for the soundproofing but we will be carrying out the work.”
  14. In a call to this Service the resident explained that one of her remaining concerns was the potential impact of the landlord’s proposed work on her ongoing mutual exchange efforts. However, she confirmed that the landlord was proceeding with the work.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states “When we first receive a complaint, we aim to agree a solution with our customer within ten working days. If this isn’t possible (for example, if the complaint is complicated), we may need a further ten days. These are referred to as ‘stage 1’ complaints.”
  2. There appears to be no dispute by either the landlord or resident that the underlying problem in this case is noise transference from a neighbouring property, rather than ASB. Because of that, the typical policies and procedures for dealing with ASB are not applicable in this case.
  3. The landlord concluded, in agreement with the resident, that soundproofing was the appropriate and preferred solution. There is no indication of any repair issues present, and so the landlord’s repair policies and procedures, and time frames, are not applicable. The intended work is more accurately categorised as major works, which usually have no set or specific time frames for completion.
  4. It is generally the case that, in the absence of any repair issues, no residential landlord has a responsibility or obligation, legal or otherwise, to provide soundproofing for its homes and properties. The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of this, and also indicates it had explained it to the resident. The landlord agreed to consider providing some form of soundproofing in October 2020. The reason for its decision is not wholly clear, although concern that it might ultimately be ordered to do so anyway by the local authority’s environmental health team, and an appreciation of the impact on the resident appear to have been factors (evidenced by its response to the resident’s mutual exchange query, and its internal emails in November 2020). Its decision was an important one involving potentially significant work and costs, and demonstrated a high level of customer service and goodwill towards the resident’s situation. Notwithstanding whether this was an obligation or not, the landlord clearly exercised its discretion to carry out such works.  The question then is whether its subsequent communication and actions were reasonable.
  5. No notes of the landlord’s meeting with the resident in October 2020 have been provided, so it is not possible to know what was discussed. However, the landlord’s later internal email on 9 December 2020 confirms that the possibility of soundproofing had been raised with her. The email explains that no further action had been taken at that point due to covid restrictions, except to obtain a quote for the work. It asks officers to contact the resident about both the soundproofing and the complaint she had raised. There is no evidence that contact was made with her about either matter. Evidence of a formal response to her complaint has also not been provided. It was somewhat understandable, at that stage and in the wider circumstances at the time, that the work had not progressed. However, the lack of a reply to her concerns, and an apparent failure to provide a complaint response was poor service, and not in line with the landlord’s complaints process for stage one complaints.
  6. The earliest indication of action and updates to the resident in 2021 is in the landlord’s 26 May 2021 email, in which it states that the resident had previously been informed that work would be “raised and scheduled” after 12 April. It is not apparent when the resident was told this. It is, however, clear that the work was not started in that timeframe, because as of September 2021 it was still outstanding. The work intended was discretionary, and it was for the landlord to decide how and when to manage and install the soundproofing. That it was still outstanding nearly a year after the possibility was raised with the resident in October 2020 is not, in itself, a service failure. However, having accepted that it would carry out the work, it needed to have done so in a clear and transparent manner by communicating regularly with the resident, providing meaningful updates, and properly managing her expectations around timeframes. While there are hints in the records that updates were provided, no clear evidence has been seen in this investigation of the landlord acting in a reasonable manner in regard to communication with the resident. Added to that, there was no formal complaint response to the resident’s original complaint.
  7. The landlord’s response to the resident’s escalated complaint provided no meaningful information. It confirmed that the work was still intended, but did not address the landlord’s overall handling of the matter up to that point, such as the time the work had taken so far, or the poor communication and management of the resident’s expectations. It did not exhibit good complaint handling in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which the landlord has committed to be guided by.
  8. The resident’s concerns about the possible impact of the landlord’s soundproofing efforts on her mutual exchange are understandable. The landlord responded to her enquiry on the subject, and provided advice on how to handle the issue. This specific matter did not form part of the resident’s complaints, and so the landlord did not have the opportunity to consider its handling. Accordingly, it cannot be formally assessed in this investigation. Nonetheless, the resident’s concern will presumably be alleviated when the work is complete, and the orders made below will assist in that regard.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord demonstrated a good focus on the welfare of its resident by exceeding its obligations and agreeing to install soundproofing in the resident’s home. However, its updates and communication with the resident were poor, there is little evidence of it managing her expectations of timeframes, and its handling of her complaints on the matter were also poor.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 in light of the frustration and inconvenience likely to have been caused to the resident by its poor handling. This payment must be made within four weeks of this report. Evidence of the payment must be provided to this Service by the deadline.
    2. Within six weeks of this report, confirm in writing to the resident and this Service that the intended work has now been completed OR provide a clear schedule of the expected timeframe for completion, and commit to update the resident promptly if the schedule changes.