Sanctuary Housing Association (202213616)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213616

Sanctuary Housing Association

27 June 2023

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. Noise from a water pump.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder with the landlord. The resident has health conditions which she has made the landlord aware of.
3. The water pump in the block where the resident lives is housed in an area that was previously a waste collection point. On 16 December 2021, the water pump started making loud banging noises. The landlord installed a new water pump on 10 January 2022.
4. On 14 February 2022, the resident reported that the new pump was making a banging noise which was preventing her from sleeping.
5. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 17 February 2022. It found that a slight noise could be heard from the pump. It recommended that the area where the pump was located was sound proofed or that it was moved to a separate kiosk, as pumps on other blocks were. The resident continued to report to the landlord that there was noise coming from the pump.
6. On 13 May 2022, the landlord’s contractors fitted an acoustic board to the internal door of the pump room. The landlord contacted the resident to advise that it could not fit any more soundproofing into the pump room.
7. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 13 June 2021. She said that:
   1. The noise was ongoing day and night.
   2. The landlord’s contractors had advised that the area where the pump was housed was not fit for purpose and that elsewhere on the estate water pumps were housed in specially built storage units.
   3. When the pump was initially reported as making a noise in December 2020, the landlord was asked to ensure that it was fixed before Christmas, but it did not do so.
   4. She was having to sleep in the lounge as this was the room furthest away from the pump room. She said she had to use ear plugs and headphones to block out the noise. She said the issue was affecting her health.
   5. She was frustrated at the number of times she had had to report the issue.
8. On 20 June 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. It said:
   1. It had organised for its contractors to inspect the pump and a fault had been found. It said it would ensure that this was repaired as quickly as possible.
   2. Its surveyor had advised there were no alternative sites to locate the pump. The landlord said there were several other pumps installed in storage rooms which to its knowledge were not causing any noise issues.
   3. It would explore the possibility of a sound specialist investigating the noise.
9. The landlord sent a further complaint response on 1 July 2022. It said that when the pump broke in December 2020, it had had to contact several companies before it found one able to carry out the work, leading to a delay in getting a new pump installed. The landlord said it would contact the resident again once its contractors had completed their inspection of the pump.
10. On 3 July 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaint procedure. She said that the time it was taking to resolve the issue was affecting her mental health, and the landlord was not taking this seriously enough.
11. The landlord informed the resident on 19 July 2022, that its contractors had adjusted the speed the pump was operating at. It asked whether the resident had noticed a reduction in noise levels. The resident responded the same day to say that the noise had decreased but still affected her at times. She said she was awaiting an outcome to her stage two complaint as the issue had been going on for seven months.
12. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 July 2022, to say she was still experiencing incessant noise. She informed the landlord that she had a diagnosis of depression, anxiety and ADHD, a condition which could increase sensitivity to sound.
13. On 29 July 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It acknowledged that there were several occasions when there were delays to the resident receiving an update. It apologised for this and offered £400 compensation. The landlord recommended a sound test in the resident’s home and asked the resident what the local authority’s environmental health department had advised her in relation to this.
14. On 9 September 2022, the landlord’s records show that the environmental health department said it would not investigate the noise. It said that as the noise was being caused by equipment installed by the landlord, it was the landlord’s responsibility to investigate further.
15. The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 28 September 2022. She said that although the landlord had apologised for its lack of communication, it had not resolved the issue. The resident said the landlord needed to find a way to insulate the water pump.
16. The resident asked the landlord on 27 October 2022, whether it had sought permission to convert the bin store into a pump room and if so, whether a sound impact assessment had been carried out.
17. On 2 November 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it had tried to add a sound contractor to its systems but had been unable to do so. The landlord said it would look to borrow noise recording equipment. It advised the resident to download a smartphone app to record the noise. The landlord said it was unable to provide further details as to whether it had sought permission to install the water pump in its current location, as the resident had not raised this in her original complaint.
18. The landlord contacted the resident on 4 November 2022. It said the resident’s housing officer would contact her to ask whether she would be willing for an independent witness to attend her property and provide the landlord with a statement about the noise.
19. The landlord informed the resident on 24 November 2022, that it could offer no further resolution other than continue to attempt to arrange for a sound specialist. It offered to consider further compensation as a goodwill gesture for the length of time her complaint had been open.
20. On 12 March 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it would consider reimbursing her if she obtained a quotation for a sound specialist of her choice. However, as the noise specialist would not be employed by the landlord, it would not be obligated to undertake any recommendations they may make.
21. The environmental health department wrote to the resident’s local councillor on 23 May 2023, to say it had contacted the resident to arrange to carry out an assessment as to whether the noise was deemed a statutory nuisance.

Assessment

Scope of Investigation

22. The resident has mentioned in her complaint that her health was affected by the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise. She has asked that the landlord acknowledge the negative impact the issue has had on her mental health. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. This Service can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
23. The resident asked the landlord whether it had sought permission to install the water pump in its current location and if so, whether a sound impact assessment was carried out. The Ombudsman is not able to consider this query in this investigation, as it did not form part of the original complaint brought to the landlord. The Ombudsman can only investigate complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident is encouraged to raise a complaint about this directly with the landlord should she wish to pursue this matter. She may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response.

Policies and Procedures

24. The landlord’s repairs procedure states that it aims to complete any emergency repairs within 24 hours. It states that an emergency repair is one that would pose a serious threat to the health and safety of residents. Any non-emergency repairs will be completed within 28 days.
25. The landlord’s complaint process has two stages. At stage one, a response will be provided within 10 working days. At stage two, a response will be provided within 20 working days. If an extension of time is needed at either stage, the procedure states that the landlord will inform the resident to confirm when a response will be provided. The complaint procedure states that once a final complaint response has been issued, the landlord will keep the complaint open for 10 working days to allow the resident to respond to the landlord’s findings.
26. The landlord’s compensation procedure states that payments of up to £400 may be made in recognition of time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by service failure.

Noise from the water pump

27. The noise from the pump was first reported on 16 December 2021 and the landlord replaced the pump on 11 January 2022. Although the noise would have been distressing for residents, the landlord acted reasonably by classing the issue as a non-emergency repair and replacing the pump within the 28-day timeframe set out in its repairs procedure.
28. The landlord installed an acoustic sound board to the door of the pump room and undertook a survey to assess whether further soundproofing could be fitted or whether the water pump could be moved. The landlord acted appropriately in doing so, demonstrating that it investigated the issue and took action to reduce the noise. The landlord was entitled to rely on its surveyor’s advice that no further soundproofing could be fitted and there was no suitable location the pump could be moved to. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that the surveyor’s opinion was incorrect.
29. It is not clear from the evidence provided to this Service, whether the landlord was able to source noise recording equipment or arrange for an independent witness to attend the resident’s property. However, it was appropriate that the landlord explored these options as ways of trying to investigate the noise and resolve the resident’s complaint.
30. The resident told the landlord that the noise from the pump was affecting her health. The landlord should have responded to this aspect of the resident’s complaint, looking at whether it could take any steps to support the resident and/or refer her to other agencies who may be able to provide support. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to advise her that she could pursue a personal injury claim with its liability insurer should she wish to do so. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims and therefore we could not comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurer if a claim is made to it.
31. The landlord has acted appropriately in apologising for its delays in communicating with the resident. It has offered the resident £400 in compensation for these delays. This is in accordance with its compensation policy set out above, which states that it can offer up to £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience. This was a reasonable offer in view of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.
32. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it would consider contracting a sound specialist to further investigate the noise in her property. This Service notes the difficulties the landlord had in adding the sound specialist to its systems. However, it could have agreed to be bound by the findings of a sound specialist contracted by the resident. The fact that it did not do so, will have caused the resident further time, trouble, and inconvenience.
33. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance states that in cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 should be offered. In this Service’s opinion a further £100 compensation should be offered for the landlord’s failure to agree to be bound by the findings of a sound specialist contracted by the resident.

Handling of the associated complaint

34. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 29 July 2022. However, on 24 November 2022, the landlord referred to the resident’s complaint as being open. The landlord’s complaints procedure, set out above, states that after a final complaint response has been issued, it will keep the complaint open for 10 working days, to allow the resident to respond. The fact that the complaint was open nearly four months after the landlord’s final complaint response, indicates that the landlord had not adhered to its procedures for the closing of complaints. There is no evidence that the resident was significantly disadvantaged by this, as the landlord had advised her in July 2022, that she had the right to take her complaint to the Ombudsman. However, the landlord should consider carrying out staff training to ensure that it closes complaints in a timely manner, in line with its complaint policy.
35. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within the timeframes set out by its complaint procedure. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that landlords should respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard.

Determination (decision)

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s complaint about noise from the pump room.
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

38. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation, within four weeks of this report, ensuring that this Service is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date. This amount is in addition to the £400 already offered via the landlord’s complaints process.

Recommendations

39. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Act on any recommendations made by the local authority’s environmental health department.
    2. Respond to the resident’s query as to whether it sought permission to install the water pump in its current location, via its complaint procedure.
    3. Carry out staff training to ensure that complaints are closed in a timely manner in line with its complaint policy.