Whitefriars Housing Group Limited (201916116)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201916116

Whitefriars Housing Group Limited

12 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.     The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

1. reports of noise from the ventilation system and lift.
2. the associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident, an assured tenant of the landlord, has been troubled by the noise from the communal fan on the roof since 28 October 2019. Another resident from his block had reported the same issue in 2018 and 2019.

3.     Throughout November and December 2019, the resident repeatedly informed the landlord that his sleep was being disturbed by the fan turning on at unsocial times. Jobs to check the noise of the fan and the lift were marked as completed on 1 November 2019, 4 November 2019, 6 November 2019, 13 November 2019, 6 November 2019, 11 December 2019 and 20 December 2019; however, the landlord’s repair records do not show the outcome of these visits.

4.     The resident acknowledged in an email that he experienced some reprieve after work was done on 31 December 2019; however, he also said that the issue recurred in January 2020. On 1 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about a “very loud whirring noise” that sounded similar to a lift. According to the notes of a telephone call, the resident reported that someone had attended but not investigated. The call-handler stated that it was difficult to action without knowing what noise it was. 

5.     On 4 March 2020, the resident requested to lodge a formal complaint about the ventilation system. He asked that it be turned off or put on a timer as it was causing him severe headaches. He said he had tried to raise the issue on multiple occasions without resolution.

6.     The landlord’s records show that the matter was marked as completed on 15 March 2020, with an intention to continue a scheduled home visit and to reiterate the information already provided. No further detail is given about what information was conveyed to the resident. The resident continued to complain about the noise and the landlord’s records show that a further call–out was marked as complete on 23 March 2020.

7.     The landlord has a two-stage complaint procedure. It states that it aims to issue its responses within 10 working days. 

8.     The landlord provided its stage one response on 15 April 2020. It noted that it had received several reports about noise from the system, and on each occasion a contractor had been sent to inspect and repair any faults. It said no fault had ever been found and that the ventilation unit was subject to regular servicing. 

9.     The landlord explained that the Health and Safety Executive had determined that the average noise level for a home was 40 decibels, and that a contractor had measured the noise at the resident’s flat to be at 42 decibels. It therefore concluded that the level of noise was not excessive. To minimise the issue, however, the landlord agreed that the fan would only operate between 7am to 11 am and 3pm to 10pm instead of running 24 hours.

10. The landlord apologised that it did not provide its stage one response sooner. It explained that this was an oversight, as it was already working with the resident to investigate reports of noise from the unit at the time the complaint was received. It did not consider that the failure to provide a prompt formal response compromised the support the repair and neighbourhood teams were offering.

11. The repair records show that a job was raised to investigate a humming noise from the lift on 7 May 2020. It was marked as completed on the same day. 

12. An internal email from 26 May 2020 details that the landlord had arranged to attend the resident’s property on 22 May 2020, but staff were unable to gain access on the day. The staff measured the noise from the neighbour’s flat as he had also complained about the same issue. They noted that there was a low but noticeable noise from the lift when in use. Following this they examined the plant room and agreed that the location of the lift shaft and fans meant that the resident would be the most affected by the noise. It was agreed that the fans would be repaired before being switched back on, and that they would assess the noise from the resident’s flat to understand the full impact and to decide on the next course of action.

13. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 June 2020, following its visit the previous day. It reiterated that the fans helped to ventilate the block, in clearing smells, and to remove excess moisture from the kitchens and bathrooms. It said that it had a legal obligation to ensure the fans were working as residents paid a service charge for their use and maintenance. While it thought the level of noise was not high, it acknowledged that the continuous running of the fans could impact on the peaceful enjoyment of his home. Accordingly, it had agreed to set a timer to ensure they would only be on during times of most need – from 7am to 9am and 5pm and 8.30pm. 

14. On the same day, the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said that despite being told that the fans would be turned off at specific times, this had not occurred. The landlord’s repair record includes an instruction to fit digital timers to enable the fans to run between 7am to 9am and 5pm to 8.30pm.

15. In its stage two response of 8 July 2020, the landlord detailed that it had attended the resident’s home on 22 May and 22 June 2020. The fans were switched off on 22 June 2020 pending the installation of a digital timer. The landlord advised that it could not switch the unit off permanently it was needed by other residents, but it had revisited the plant room on 1 July 2020, after the resident complained that he could still hear the fans. The landlord confirmed that the fans had not yet been switched back on; however, they would be in operation between 7am to 11 am and 3pm to 10pm following the installation of the timer on 9 July 2020.

16. The resident informed the Ombudsman that his phone measured noise levels in the property to be at 70 decibels, and that the landlord had not measured this. He stated that the noise was so disruptive that he had taken to sleeping in his vehicle on occasion.

17. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) lists noise as a potential category 1 hazard. According to the HHSRS Guidance for Landlords and Property Related Professionals, this “includes threats to physical and mental health from exposure to noise in the home caused by a lack of sufficient sound insulation.”  Some of the listed factors that can make noise intolerable are:

1. loud, continuous or apparently unnecessary noises which seem to go on indefinitely
2. seemingly inconsiderate noises, especially at night
3. location of dwelling in particularly noisy environment
4. inadequate internal insulation
5. inadequate levels of external sound insulation
6. noisy equipment or facilities

18. As a registered provider of social housing, the landlord is required to ensure that its properties meet the Decent Home Standard. A Decent Home: Definition and guidance for implementation states: “To be decent, a dwelling should be free of category 1 hazards, and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action unless practical steps cannot be taken without disproportionate expense or disruption. Landlords should consider the circumstances very carefully in the interests of the occupiers of the dwelling before concluding that a hazard cannot be dealt with effectively, and in such cases should ensure that the occupiers are fully aware of the position.”

19. The HHSRS Operating Guidance states: “Measurement of noise levels using properly calibrated noise meters can be helpful to confirm the subjective assessment.”

20. The landlord has guidance on use of noise monitoring equipment. It sets out that it may be appropriate for persistent and excessive reports of noise nuisance and should, if used, be installed for no longer than two weeks maximum and one week minimum.

Assessment and findings

21. The landlord’s repair records are scant on its responses to the resident’s concerns about the noise generated by the fan and/or lift. Although multiple works orders have been marked as completed, it is not documented if an operative attended, or what the findings were. The repair records therefore do not provide proof of the landlord’s assertion that a contractor carried out an inspection every time the resident reported a problem or that a decibel meter had been utilised to check the noise levels. This demonstrates a failure in record-keeping.

22. However, by agreeing to reduce the times the fan was in operation, the landlord showed that it had considered the impact of the noise on the resident. It is appropriate that it arranged an additional visit when the resident continued to complain about excessive noise. Although its operatives were unable to gain access on 22 May 2020, reasonable attempts were made to assess the resident’s situation by attending another home affected by the noise and deducing that the resident would be affected to a greater degree, because of the location of his flat. At a follow-up visit one month later, the landlord concluded that the level of noise was not high but acknowledged that the continuous running of the fans could have a negative effect on the resident’s enjoyment of his home. While it could not switch off the fans permanently because of its obligations to other tenants, it was appropriate that the landlord sought to minimise the disruption to the resident by proposing to reduce the fan’s operating hours a further 3.5 hours from what had been previously agreed. The landlord noted that the resident had subsequently complained of noise at a time when the fans were turned off pending the installation of timers.

23. The resident has expressed concern that the landlord did not make sufficient attempts to investigate the noise disturbance. The HHSRS Operating Guidance states that measurement of noise levels can be useful alongside subjective assessments, and the landlord’s own policy suggests that noise monitoring equipment may be useful where there are persistent and excessive reports of noise nuisance. The Ombudsman has not viewed any contemporaneous evidence of a decibel meter being used, although the stage one response states that there was a reading of 42 decibels. The resident has said that he obtained a reading of 70 decibels on his phone. While this information would support additional investigations, it does not appear that the high reading was put to the landlord prior to, or during, the complaint process. Therefore, the landlord cannot be faulted for not taking this information into account.

24. However, the landlord’s investigation was deficient in other respects. Although it identified the lift as a potential cause of noise disturbance, it failed to address the matter in its complaint responses. A job for this was raised and marked as completed, and the resident acknowledged that someone attended. However, there is no accompanying information about the inspection or any advice provided to the resident. Additionally, the landlord could have considered installing noise monitoring equipment to record the noises reported by the resident when the fans were off. While it appears that the landlord did not view the noise as a category 1 hazard, it could have advised the resident of the option of applying for permission to install sound insulation or applying for a transfer from the property, noting that the resident had expressed concerns about the impact on his health and sleep.

25. The landlord’s stage one response was provided in 29 working days, far longer than its target of 10 working days. However, it appears that the landlord was in contact with the resident about the noise issue during this time, and the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in issuing a formal response. This was appropriate. The Ombudsman does not consider any further redress is needed in respect of this, given the limited detriment caused to the resident. It is noted that the stage two response reverted back to the original hours for the fan timer, rather than the reduced hours that had been agreed upon most recently (7am to 9am and 5pm and 8.30pm). The Ombudsman understands that the fans had in fact been set to the reduced hours, going by the intention expressed in the repair records, and its written assurance to the resident on 23 June 2020.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the reports of noise from the ventilation system and lift.

27. In accordance with 55(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has offered redress to the complainant which satisfactorily resolves its complaint handling failure.  

Reasons

28. Although there is some evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s complaints of noise disturbance, the records provided do not show the findings of any inspections before May 2020. Email correspondence after May 2020 shows that home visits were undertaken, but the focus shifted to the effect of the fan, when concerns had also been raised about the noise from the lift. The landlord could have used noise recording equipment to capture the whirring noise of the lift to fully assess the impact and provided some advice about options available to the resident. In respect of the noise generated by the fan, it was reasonable that the landlord reduced the number of operational hours to minimise the impact on the resident.

29. The landlord did not adhere to the target timescale for its stage one complaint response; however, it appears to have been in contact with the resident prior to the issuing of a formal response, and it apologised for the omission. This was appropriate.

Orders

30. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:

1. pay the resident £100 in compensation for its inadequate investigation into his noise complaints
2. arrange for a further investigation of the noise in the resident’s home, including the use of noise equipment to assess the impact of the noise from the lift. Based on its findings, the landlord should either advise the resident of what remedial action it intends to take, or provide a detailed explanation of its reasoning should it decide not to take the matter any further.