St Albans City and District Council (202202633)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202633

St Albans City and District Council

13 February 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise disturbance.
2. Rehousing application.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Due to his concerns about noise disturbance and the impact on his household, the resident submitted a rehousing application to the landlord. This was initially made in March 2021, and then again in April 2021. The landlord refused on grounds of rent arrears. The resident raised a concern about the landlord’s handling of the rehousing application as part of his stage 2 complaint. In its response of, December 2022, the landlord approved the application and upgraded the resident’s banding to ‘b’ on the local authority’s choice based lettings bidding system.
The resident contacted this Service in May 2022, and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said that he remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his rehousing application, as he was unable to bid on suitable properties, despite having a priority banding awarded.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants living in unsuitable conditions and applicants who need to move on medical, or welfare grounds.
The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications.
The resident’s rehousing application falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), and was dealt with by the landlord within its capacity as the local authority. As such, it cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman, and the complaint is better suited to the LGSCO. The resident may wish to raise a complaint with the LGSCO about the landlord’s handling of his rehousing application.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom flat in a block, and has a 5 year flexible secure tenancy that started in August 2017. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Summary of events

The resident raised concerns about noise disturbance from the flat above in 2018, and again in late 2019. The landlord installed noise monitoring equipment at the resident’s property in November 2019. It wrote to the resident on 29 November 2019 and said:
1. The floorboards above could be heard “creaking” on “numerous occasions”.
2. It had decided to arrange a joint inspection of his property, and the property above, on 16 December 2019. This was to identify any works that would reduce the noise disturbance.
From the evidence available it is not possible to determine the outcome of the joint inspection. It does not appear any works took place around that time, in relation to the reported noise disturbance.
The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint about its handling of the noise disturbance, on 19 October 2021, and said:
1. New tenants had moved in the flat above, and the issue was worse than before.
2. It had not addressed the issue with the floorboards.
3. He wanted a meeting with the landlord to discuss the matter.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 17 November 2021 and said:
1. Due to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance and “noisy floorboards that creaked and squeaked”, it had installed sound monitoring equipment in 2019.
2. The noise monitoring equipment showed the noise transmission from the floorboards was “excessive”.
3. It had raised works to repair/do works to the floorboards to mitigate the problem.
4. “Due to covid” it “struggled to get access” to do the repairs so they did not go ahead.
5. The residents in the flat moved out 6 weeks ago, and it had added works to the floorboards to complete while the property was empty. It visited the resident on 20 September 2021 and advised him of this.
6. It inspected the property above on 8 October 2021 and it was confirmed all floorboards had been refixed and were “secure”. It was noted that they were still “slightly squeaky”.
7. Following a further complaint about the noise, it raised another job to attend and refit the flooring on 20 October 2021. It attended on 22 October 2021 and it was noted the noise was mainly emanating from around the hearth area in the flat above.
8. It was going to do a structural survey of both properties to identify appropriate works.
9. Its investigation found that information about noise disturbance, due to the flooring, was not passed across to the team completing the void works
10. It apologised and advised it was an issue it would “look into” to prevent it happening again
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 November 2021 asking his complaint to be taken to stage 2, and said:
1. He was unhappy with its response and felt its summary of the issue as “squeaking floorboards” was “insulting”. He had been raising the issue for “4 years”, and the landlord had not taken appropriate action.
2. He felt the issue was related to the structure of the building, as his ceiling would bend when his neighbours walked across the room. The electrics were also affected.
3. He wanted the landlord to bring the property up to a standard “fit for habitation”.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 21 December 2021 and said:
1. It had completed the structural survey on 7 December 2021. It hoped to receive the report soon, and would draw up a scope of works based on its recommendations.
2. It would be in touch about the proposed works once it had a plan.
3. It noted some works had been done to the floorboards, but it did not appear to have resolved the issue.
This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord contacted the resident with the outcome of the survey in the immediate period after it issued its stage 2 complaint response.
The resident contacted this Service on 10 May 2022 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said that the landlord has done some works to the joists and floorboards upstairs, but they had not resolved the problem.
Internal emails, from March 2023, indicate that the landlord did sound proofing works to the property above, when it was empty in “early 2022”. The emails also indicate that it sought to do further sound proofing works in the resident’s property, also in 2022. The landlord reported that the resident refused the works and had stated that he wanted to move property instead.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Noise is cited as a potential hazard, when due to inadequate sound insulation or disrepair, which falls within the scope of HHSRS.
The landlord’s repairs handbook gives repair timeframes within which it will complete repairs, depending on their priority. It gives the following categories of repair:
1. Priority 1(Emergency): it will attend to make safe within 2 hours and rectify the repair within 24 hours.
2. Priority 2 (At resident’s convenience): the repair will normally be completed within 28 days, and at the resident’s convenience.

Reports of noise disturbance

Following the resident raising concerns about noise disturbance from the property above in 2019, the landlord installed noise monitoring equipment in his property. Following evidence gathered by the equipment, the landlord decided it needed to do a joint inspection to identify works to the flooring above his property. This approach was reasonable in the circumstances, and evidence that the landlord took the resident’s concerns about noise disturbance, and the structure of the building, seriously.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord followed up with the resident about its joint inspection or sought to complete any works at around that time. This caused a disappointment to the resident, as it did not follow up on something it said it would do. The landlord’s repair log, provided for this investigation, does not include any information about the proposed joint inspection from 2019, or any works raised in relation to the noise disturbance from around that time. This is a failing in the landlord record keeping, and can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the further delays in completing works to address the noise disturbance.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate in how it addressed the works raised as part of the inspection in 2019. The landlord stated that “due to covid” it was unable to get access to complete works. Its comment lacked a meaningful explanation of the why it was unable to access the property, or when it had done so.
The first Covid-19 lockdown started on 23 March 2020 and between this date and 31 May 2020, most landlords were only carrying out emergency repairs. However, on 1 June 2020, the Government had issued guidance to social landlords to say that they could resume wider repairs if they were carried out in line with public health advice. The second lockdown was from 5 November 2020 to 2 December 2020. However, the national guidance at the time stated that landlords could still carry out repairs and safety inspections, if in line with public health advice. This advice did not change during the third lockdown, which started on 6 January 2021.
As the repair was evidently not an emergency repair there was a period that the landlord, in line with government guidance, could not be expected to progress. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations around this issue, or provided periodic updates about the delays. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. There is also no evidence to indicate that the landlord was proactive in following up on the repair, after restrictions eased, which was a further failing, that caused an inconvenience.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of November 2021, explained that it was going to do a structural survey, to try and identify works. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. It is evidence that the landlord took the resident’s concerns, and its responsibilities under the HHSRS seriously. It concluded a repair it was responsible for may be contributing to the noise disturbance. Considering this, its approach was appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response admitted a failing that it did not share relevant information about the issue, when the property above became empty. The landlord appropriately apologised. However, its response lacked learning, and to suggest it would “look into” the issue, was inappropriate. A meaningful complaint investigation, which applied the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes, could reasonably be expected to investigate such failings. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the noise disturbance, without a proper explanation of how it would seek to learn from its admitted failings.
That the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response admitted failings in its handling of the issue, but failed to offer appropriate redress to the resident. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the matter. In line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of putting things right, it would have been appropriate to offer the resident redress for the time and trouble he had spent asking it to progress the matter.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also sought to reassure the resident it was taking his concerns about noise disturbance seriously. It explained what it would do once it received the structural survey. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
However, the stage 2 complaint response failed to address the shortcomings of its earlier complaint response. It did not give any meaningful assessment of its actions up to that point. As part of his escalation request, the resident raised a concern that the landlord had failed to act for “4 years” and felt its assessment was “insulting”. Given the resident’s evident distress at the conditions he was experiencing; the landlord’s lack of assessment of its own actions, despite earlier admitted failings, was inappropriate. The resident experienced a further inconvenience of the landlord not addressing specific aspects of its handling of the issue.
As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it would update the resident on the works it planned to do. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord followed up on its promise made in the stage 2 complaint response, around that time. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter, and a further inconvenience to the resident.
It is apparent that in late 2022 the landlord sought to do further sound proofing works, and sound testing prior to those works. That the landlord sought to do further sound proofing works was appropriate. However, that it did not seek to do these works until late 2022, amounts to an unreasonable delay. The landlord had stated its intention to do further works, based on the recommendations of its survey, in late 2021. That it did not progress with this for nearly a year was unreasonable and caused further frustration to the resident.
The evidence available indicates that the resident refused the proposed sound proofing works in late 2022. Given his concerns about noise disturbance from the property above, it is unclear why he refused. That the resident did refuse can reasonably be concluded to impacted on the landlord’s ability to resolve the matter.
There were delays with progressing with works to resolve the issue in 2019, and it was inappropriate to solely blame the delay on the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord was not proactive in following up on identified repairs. That it did not follow up with further information, as it said it would in its stage 2 response, is evidence that it had not learnt from its earlier failings. There was nearly a year delay in seeking to start further works, which was unreasonable. It is evident the resident refused further works, which impacted on the landlord’s ability to resolve the matter. However, due to the number of failings identified, this Service has made a finding of maladministration, and a series of appropriate orders are set out below.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued 21 working days after the complaint was made, although not an excessive delay, it was a shortcoming in its complaint handling. That it did not apologise for, or acknowledge, the delay was inappropriate, and caused the resident an inconvenience.
As outlined above the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response admitted failings in its handling of the substantive issue, but failed to offer appropriate redress. The delay in issuing its response meant the resident experienced an inconvenience of a delay in getting a response to his concerns. There was a lack of meaningful investigation at stage 2, which meant the resident did not get a response to specific concerns he had raised. The series of complaint handling failings identified by this investigation have resulted in a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There were delays with progressing with works to resolve the issue in 2019, and it was inappropriate to solely blame the delay on the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord was not proactive in following up on identified repairs. That it did not follow up with further information, as it said it would in its stage 2 response, is evidence that it had not learnt from its earlier failings. There was nearly a year delay in seeking to start further works, which was unreasonable. It is evident the resident refused further works, which impacted on the landlord’s ability to resolve the matter.
The stage 1 complaint response was sent outside of the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy, but it failed to acknowledge, or apologise for the delay. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response admitted failings, but failed to offer appropriate redress. The stage 2 complaint response lacked a meaningful investigation of its own actions, and was silent on specific concerns raised by the resident.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £400 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Conduct a review into its handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance with a particular focus on:
  1. The failings identified in this report.
  2. Its poor communication with the resident.
  3. Its failure to follow up on identified repairs.
2. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff. The training should focus on:
  1. Complaint handling timeframes set out in its policy and the Code
  2. proactively updating a resident if there is a delay
  3. The importance of a meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes, and offers appropriate redress.
3. The dates of the training and content should be provided to this Service.