Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202317640)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317640

Sovereign Network Homes

31 July 2024

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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of noise.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2012. The property is a 2-bedroom third-floor flat.
The resident has previously reported noise problems to the landlord in 2021. However, this investigation report has considered the resident’s reports to the landlord of noise problems and beeping from the automatic opening vent (AOV) from January 2023 as explained in the scoping paragraph below.
AOVs are designed to ventilate air or extract smoke from buildings during emergencies. It will close or open automatically when triggered by a smoke alarm or a control system.
On 30 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and reported issues about noise from the AOV. The landlord’s AOV repair records stated that the contractor attended on the same day and reset the control panels which stopped the beeping.
The repair records showed a further fault was reported on 31 January 2023. The contractor arrived on site and noted that there was a fault with the AOV but was unable to gain access as they did not have the key.
The resident has advised this Service that a further call was made to the landlord on the 20 March 2023, to report that the issue was ongoing; however, there is no record of this in the evidence provided by the parties.
On 26 April 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about a constant alarm bleeping outside her bedroom window for the last 3 and half months. The resident stated that this resulted in significant sleep deprivation which negatively impacted her performance while at work and while working from home. The resident stated consideration for compensation should be made due to the impact the noise had on her life and work.
On 12 May 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. The AOV system was tested and serviced each month by its appointed contractor.
2. At the time of the contractor’s attendance at the site on 26 April 2023, no beeping or noise was heard from the AOV, but repairs were identified to the control panels, possibly due to misuse.
3. It acknowledged the length of time taken in fixing the issues with the AOV system and advised that this had been addressed with the contractor.
4. Once the repairs had been completed, the landlord would be happy to meet with the resident to show her the repairs.
Emails were exchanged between the resident and the landlord on 23 May 2023. The resident advised that the issues with the alarm had not been permanently fixed and had resumed 24 hours after being repaired. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it had escalated her complaint to stage 2.
Between 25 May 2023 and 8 June 2023, emails were exchanged between the landlord and resident confirming that the beeping/noise had stopped following a further repair on 23 May 2023. However, the resident stated that a simple apology was not sufficient as mentioned in her original complaint to the landlord.
On 28 June 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. The resident had indicated she was hearing beeping for three and a half months, but this was not reported to the landlord by the resident or anyone else. The landlord, therefore, did not know there was an issue that needed to be fixed.
2. However, the landlord accepted the repairs should have and could have been identified sooner once it became aware of the issue. The landlord advised this had been fed back to the contractor responsible for the regular monthly servicing and testing of the AOV system.
3. The landlord stated its position regarding the effect the noise would have had on the resident’s wellbeing. It considered this would have been minimal due the distance between the communal window (where the noise could be heard) and the resident’s bedroom.
4. The landlord concluded the approach, actions and explanations at the time of resolving the issue were appropriate in measure.
Emails were exchanged in July 2023 with the resident, which confirmed there were no further noise issues.
On 20 July 2023, the resident emailed this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the resident reported noise issues to the landlord in 2021. Paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This, however, is at the Ombudsman’s discretion, and decisions regarding timeframes will be made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific circumstances.
In this instance, the resident’s complaint concerns noise issues reported to the landlord beginning from 30 January 2023. As such, the Ombudsman has only considered the residents report beginning from this date.
Further, the Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of her reports negatively impacted her health and work productivity. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health and work productivity.
Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her health. The resident has informed the landlord and this service the noise affected her health and productivity at work.
The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her and her family’s health, she has the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

Policies and procedures

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by the Housing Act 2004 to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Noise is a potential hazard covered by the HHSRS and the landlord is required to consider if a noise problem amounts to a hazard that may require remedy.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that any financial award is usually designed to put the complainant in the position they would have been. The policy also states that to be able to award compensation, it must have identified where something has gone wrong and the effect this has had on the complainant. This could have been caused by the landlord or any third party it has employed to complete a task such as taking too long to do a task.
When calculating any financial compensation, the landlord’s policy states it considers all aspects of the complaint, including the severity of the issue, how long it went on for, and any specific circumstances such as vulnerabilities, which may have increased the impact of what has happened.
The tenancy agreement states that it will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including any shared areas and services, lifts, passages, chutes, lighting, and fire safety precautions for those of who have communal services.
Further, the tenancy agreement states any repair obligations would be carried out within a reasonable time from when the landlord becomes aware of a need for repair.

Noise

The landlord’s website provides the following guidance for types of repairs, depending on their urgency:
1. Emergency repair: The landlord aims to attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and make safe. It states that emergency repairs are situations where there is a risk to someone’s health or safety, a home is not secure, or there is damage that will compromise the structure of a home. However, some repairs may be classed as urgent, but do not necessarily require a four hour response. The landlord aims to make these types of repairs safe within 24 hours of it being reported as an urgent repair.
2. Routine repairs: The landlord aims to attend within one calendar month of a repair being reported. However, the landlord does advise this can be extended to 42 days. Routine repairs are repairs which are unlikely to cause serious health and safety problems or serious damage if they are not fixed straight away.
The landlord first became aware of the noise problem on 30 January 2023. The repair records show multiple actions raised and multiple attempts by the landlord to repair the fault with the AOV system. However, the fault was not repaired until 23 May 2023 where there was no re-occurrence of beeping from the AOV after this date. This is more than 113 days after the initial report from the resident, and therefore the fault was not repaired within a reasonable time frame per its tenancy agreement or its repair guidance.
An action was raised for a contractor to attend to the resident’s property to repair the issue on the 30 January 2023. The contractor’s notes in the repair records stated the control panels were reset and the beeping had stopped. The landlord took reasonable steps to address and repair the issue within its repair guidance. However, the AOV repair records shows the issue had not been fixed as a follow up action was raised on 31 January 2023 concerning beeping outside the resident’s flat. It is reasonable for a landlord to take multiple attempts to fix an issue, but it would be expected that residents would be notified of any delays or failure in repairing the issue.
The AOV repair records dated 31 January 2023 state that the contractor could not locate the door key to access the system. The contractor advised they would attend later when they had located the key. There are no follow up notes or actions showing this had taken place. A further action was raised on the 8 February 2023 regarding the AOV alarm sounding throughout the building. However, the contractor noted the door key was missing or had been lost, therefore the contractor manually silenced all the control panels, but the fault still remained. It would be expected for a landlord to raise any necessary follow up action. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed about the delays to its repairs. There is also no evidence in the records showing any action taken by the landlord to locate/replace the door key and any actions taken to prevent this from re-occurring. This failure resulted in a contractor being sent to the property on the 8 February 2023 where the key was still missing. This failure caused a further delay in resolving the noise issue. While they silenced the control panels, the fault still remained. This meant there was an unreasonable further delay to the resolution of the problem, nor was this communicated to the resident in line with its policy.
The AOV repair records show that the fault had not been fixed as further actions were raised on 8 March 2023 and 16 March 2023 concerning beeping from the AOV. While the contractor noted the fault had been fixed on 16 March 2023, the resident advised they called the landlord on 20 March 2023 regarding the same noise issue. There is no evidence of this call in the repair records, but the reference provided by the resident is similar to other references recorded during the period. This indicates a call was made to the landlord but there was a failure by the landlord to record this in its records. Had it done so, it would have alerted them to the fact the fault with the AOV system remained and was affecting the resident.
As the issue has not been resolved, the resident raised a formal complaint on 26 April 2023, concerning the noise problem. A fundamental aspect of basic repair management is to proactively establish whether more proportionate interventions are needed in order to find a permanent resolution to an ongoing issue. It is fine, up to a point, to take a trial- and-error approach. However, there comes a point where a more thorough investigation is required, to establish the cause of the issue so that a long-term solution can be found. This delay in taking a more pro-active approach at the earliest opportunity was a failing on the landlord’s behalf, as it should not have taken the raising of a formal complaint to instigate finding a permanent solution.
A contractor attended the property on 26 April 2023, and stated that the faults with the control panel had been repaired. While the landlord’s response times to the reports of noise from the AOV system were in line with the timeframes stated in its repairs policy, there is no indication in the evidence provided that the landlord considered or investigated why the AOV system was experiencing repeated call-outs despite attempts to repair the issue and previous attempts to reset the control panels had not fixed the issue.
It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to contact the resident after the repairs and stage 1 complaint response to determine whether the issue had been resolved as previous attempts to permanently resolve the noise/beeping had not been successful. However, as the landlord did not contact the resident, it led to further communication and videos from the resident advising the issue had not been fixed. While the landlord’s response times were in line with its policy, the landlord failed in repairing and fixing the noise issue caused by the AOV system within a reasonable time frame as per the tenancy agreement and repairs guidance on its website.
In communication between the resident and the landlord on 8-9 June 2023, it was suspected someone was trying to activate the AOV. While this Service has not been provided a copy of the letter, the landlord advised the resident it would send a letter to all residents reminding them to not touch the panels. The Ombudsman finds this is reasonable if it was the first time the landlord suspected or was made aware issues with the AOV system was due to misuse. However, in its complaint response dated 12 May 2023, the landlord had already suspected some of the issues were caused by misuse. Therefore, once the landlord was made aware the noise issue had not been resolved or someone had tried to activate or tamper with the AOV system, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to carry out an investigation. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy) list possible methods of carrying out an investigation. One of the methods that would be reasonable for the landlord to employ, is the use of CCTV for evidence gathering. No evidence has been provided to show whether an investigation was carried out.
The landlord considered that the noise would have had a minimal effect on the resident. However, this response was not empathetic to the issues faced by the resident as the landlord’s own noise policy states everyone has a right to the peaceful enjoyment of their own home. Further, the impact of noise transference is likely to affect each person differently and the way the landlord manages noise complaints should reflect this.
While the landlord responded in a timely manner to the resident’s report and sent out contractors, the fault with the AOV was not fixed until 23 May 2023 despite reports from the resident and other parties. There was an issue with how further repairs or actions were raised or not raised in the AOV repair record. If actions had been raised or recorded properly, this could have identified the fault earlier and allow the landlord to fix the issue without formal complaints being raised. The landlord acknowledged its failure in resolving the issue within a timely manner and has fed this back to the contractor who maintained and serviced the AOV system.
As per the landlord’s compensation policy, the noise issue did cause inconvenience to the resident and took multiple attempts to resolve involving much time and effort.
The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration by the landlord in the handling of the resident’s reports of noise caused by the faulty AOV panel.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023, we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding handling of the resident’s reports of noise.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £370 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the noise reports. This is calculated as follows:
1. £160 for the delay by the landlord in repairing the AOV fault.
2. £160 for the distress caused to the resident.
3. £50 for the time and trouble taken the resident to report the issue.
This amount must be paid directly to the resident and the landlord must provide this Service with evidence of the above payment within four weeks of the date of this determination. Payment should also be made directly to the resident’s bank account and should not be offset against any arrears the resident may have accrued.