Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202212817)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212817

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

29 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. the resident’s reports of noise nuisance caused by her above neighbour’s floorboards.
    2. the resident’s formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident resides in a one-bedroom, ground floor property and holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The landlord recorded that the resident suffers with mental health issues.
  2. The resident first reported a squeaky noise from the above neighbour’s floorboards on 22 January 2021. Following this, the landlord advised it would be able to investigate repairs after lockdown restrictions were lifted. There was no communication for a six-month period following this.
  3. The resident began reporting noise issues again in July 2021 and in response, the landlord provided the resident with the noise app so that the neighbour’s floorboards could be recorded.
  4. On 27 June 2022, the resident logged a formal complaint. The stage one response dated 28 June 2022 stated that the complaint was upheld, and a repair appointment was booked in for the following day to the above neighbour’s property in an attempt to address the noise issue. The landlord advised that it would provide a further update following the visit.
  5. On 7 July 2022, the resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage two as she had not been provided with an update and remained unaware whether the landlord had attended to inspect the neighbour’s flooring.
  6. The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 30 September 2022. The response outlined that:
    1. An inspection was carried out on 21 July 2022 which identified that the noise affecting the resident from the above flat was not usual noise experienced from living in a flat. A repair was identified to the neighbour’s floorboards to remedy the noise issue.
    2. Since the inspection, the landlord was unable to gain access to the above neighbour’s property and it could not share details of the next steps as this would breach data protection.
    3. The landlord apologised in its response for the lack of communication with the resident regarding the noise nuisance reports and acknowledged that the resident had made several calls and emails to the landlord without an acceptable response.
    4. The landlord offered a total of £290 compensation comprising of £140 compensation for the distress experienced in the months since the noise had been reported, £100 for poor communication from the landlord regarding the matter, and £50 for delays dealing with the complaint at stage two.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 January 2023 to advise the floorboards had been repaired and should the resident experience further noise nuisance, she should let the landlord know.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remains dissatisfied that the landlord took little action to address the noise nuisance throughout the complaints process despite her regularly chasing for updates. She also remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered and feels it does not go far enough to put the landlord’s failings right.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has suggested that as a result of the landlord’s failure to eradicate the noise at her property, her mental health deteriorated. While this may be a possibility, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance caused by her above neighbour’s floorboards

  1. The landlord advised the resident in January 2021 that due to lockdown measures which were in place at the time, no action could be taken at this stage to address the noise nuisance. The resident did not make further reports about the noise nuisance following this until July 2021. Given the one report made by the resident and the lockdown restrictions at the time, the landlord would not have been able to take further actions at this stage.
  2. The landlord took steps to investigate the resident’s reports of noise from July 2021.It provided the resident with the ‘noise app’ so that she could record the ‘squeaky’ sounds from the floorboards above. It also attended the neighbour’s property on 21 July 2021to investigate the cause of the noise. During its visit and upon review of the resident’s noise app submissions, it noted an excessive noise caused by an outstanding repair required to the above neighbour’s floorboards.
  3. The landlord experienced access issues when it attempted to complete repairs to the above neighbour’s floorboards. This would have delayed progress for the landlord completing the repairs. However, after it identified the cause of the noise nuisance, it took the landlord a total of18 months to complete the repair in the neighbour’s property. The noise nuisance was ongoing throughout this timeframe. This Service has not been provided with any evidence suggesting the landlord communicated with the neighbour after its initial visit to gain access to the property to complete the repair. The landlord should have taken a more proactive approach to address the repair, keeping the resident updated to reassure her that it was addressing the ongoing noise nuisance she was experiencing.
  4. The landlord failed to handle the noise nuisance reports consistently. On 21 October 2021, the landlord logged the matter as anti-social behaviour (ASB) and closed it in early 2022. It is unclear why the case was closed given the noise issue was ongoing. The landlord also intermittently referred to the noise nuisance as a repair due to the damaged floorboards in the above property. On some occasions when the resident contacted the landlord, she was referred to the tenancy team, and on other occasions to the maintenance team. The lack of clarity on how the issue was being dealt with would have caused frustration to the resident and a loss of confidence in the landlord whilst she was seeking a resolution to her complaint.
  5. Following the landlord’s decision to log the matter as ASB, it did not effectively handle the reports of noise nuisance as per its ASB policy. For example, the policy outlines that the landlord will keep in regular contact with the complainant, agree an action plan with the reporting parties, and keep them updated through the case. The landlord failed to provide regular updates to the resident with her having to chase on multiple occasions.
  6. Although the landlord’s ASB policy is inclusive of floor noises, the basis of the resident’s noise reports were related to household noise from the neighbour’s flooring rather than ASB. This Service’s spotlight report on noise outlines that it is unfair on both the complainant and person being complained about for household noise to be treated as ASB when it is not, and harder for the landlord to make consistent and reasonable decisions not having the right framework for all types of noise reports. This was evident in the landlord’s handling of this complaint. The landlord should have used a triage methodology to identify whether the noise report would have been better dealt with under the landlord’s good neighbourhood management policy rather than its ASB policy given the reported noise was not anti-social in nature.
  7. Throughout the complaints process, the resident advised the landlord that the noise issue was seriously impacting her mental health. On occasions she advised she felt suicidal and had intention to harm both herself and the neighbour due to the ongoing issue. In response, the landlord logged the resident on its system as vulnerable and made safeguarding referrals where appropriate, but took little action to progress the repair of the neighbour’s floorboards. The landlord should have acknowledged the impact the noise was having on the resident and taken further action to address the noise issue. The landlord underestimated the detriment caused to the resident and did not take this into account within its complaint responses.
  8. The resident felt her concerns were not being taken seriously by the landlord and progress was not being made to address the noise nuisance. This Service identified a pattern of poor communication from the landlord throughout the complaints process. Initially, the landlord did not provide an update to the resident as promised in its stage one response after advising it would inspect the above neighbour’s property on 28 July 2021. Moreover, due to the lack of communication from the landlord, the resident regularly phoned and emailed it requesting updates, sometimes several times a day. When the landlord responded to the resident’s communications, it either told her it could not pass any information on due to data protection, or that the complaint had been referred to a different staff member. On 27 June 2022, the resident phoned the landlord on five occasions about the noise issue. On each occasion, no update was provided, nor was a call back actioned. These issues demonstrate a failure in the service provided when dealing with the resident’s noise complaints.
  9. Whilst This Service acknowledges there is some information that landlords cannot provide to residents due to data protection, this does not detract from the landlord’s responsibilities in this case to update the resident on what actions it intended to take to address the noise nuisance.
  10. In addition to the landlord’s lack of communication when handling the noise reports, the landlord undermined the resident’s assertion of how the noise was impacting her. During a phone call on 18 August 2021, it advised the resident that ‘everyone living in flats experiences noise’. This was inappropriate and would have caused frustration to the resident who had been calling the landlord continuously for the past month asking for it to take action over the noise nuisance.
  11. The absence of a clear action plan and the landlord’s failure to provide consistent updates was insufficient. Although the landlord’s stage two response identified a lack of communication, it did not reflect the full extent of the failings or take into consideration the detriment caused to the resident. In light of the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the above neighbour’s flooring.
  12. It is evident that the noise issues within the property had a serious and long-term effect on the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy outlines that vulnerabilities or specific situations which make the failings more impactful must be included when calculating a fair amount. The landlord’s offer of £140 did not go far enough to put things right given the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It was also insufficient to redress the delays for the noise nuisance to be resolved. Furthermore, the £100 compensation for poor communication is also insufficient to redress the lack of updates and dismissive comment made by the landlord when corresponding with the resident about the noise. The landlord’s offer was not reasonable to redress its failings and it is therefore ordered to pay the resident compensation as detailed in the orders below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling at stage one of its process was contrary to its own procedures and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It failed to address the resident’s complaint properly and did not provide an update to the resident as it said it would. The stage one complaint response did not include any details of actions which the landlord intended to take to remedy the complaint which was a missed opportunity to put things right. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident that has not been put right by the landlord.
  2. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for delays responding to the resident’s complaint at stage two. The landlord’s complaints process outlines that a stage two complaint response will be provided to the resident within 20 working days. The landlord did not adhere to these timescales and apologised for this. It issued a stage two complaint response 61 days after the complaint had been acknowledged. The £50 offer was reasonable to redress this failing.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance caused by her above neighbour’s floorboards.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £700 compensation comprising of:
    1. £350 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the resident chasing for updates and for the delays in the repairs causing the noise being addressed. This amount is inclusive of the £140 already offered by the landlord.
    2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 for the landlord’s poor communication and the manner in which it communicated to the resident. This amount is inclusive of the £100 already offered by the landlord.
    3. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 to address its failure through the landlord’s internal complaints process. This amount is inclusive of the £50 already offered by the landlord.
  2. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report when dealing with this complaint.
  3. Evidence of compliance with the above orders should be shared with the Housing Ombudsman within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to utilise a triage methodology for identifying whether a noise report should be handled under its ASB policy or its good neighbourhood management policy. This should include a recognition that the time the noise occurred has a bearing on whether the noise is anti-social in nature. The landlord should subsequently inform residents which policy their noise report is being handled under.
  2. The landlord is recommended to have a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct to the ASB policy, with a clear suite of options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships and a matrix for assessing which option is the most appropriate. This is in line with this Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise.