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

Peabody Trust (202115548)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115548

Catalyst Housing Limited

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 the resident’s reports of noise transference from the property above.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord under an assured tenancy. The property is a ground floor flat in a house conversion. The landlord is the freeholder of the property.
  2. The resident is dyslexic and supported in his complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman by an advocate from the charity MIND.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord about noise transference from the property above for several years and said it was having a detrimental effect on his mental health.
  4. As part of its stage 1 complaint response the landlord proposed to visit the resident at home. The resident’s position was for the visit to be purposeful the landlord should attend with a means to record the noise and visit the upstairs property at the same time to assess the floorboards and noise transference between the properties.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident stating the resident had not provided a date for the home visit, the matter was resolved, and it would be closing the case.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with this and escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process and sent the landlord a recording of the noise which the landlord listened to.
  7. The landlord’s final stage 2 response was that the property met building regulations at the time of the property conversion, it was not required to conduct any further investigations, and installing sound insulation would be uneconomical and set an unaffordable precedent across its homes.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman. To solve the problem the resident would like an independent acoustic sound test to determine the levels of noise experienced in the property and soundproofing materials fitted to the flat above.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident.
  3. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transference from the property above.

  1. The records provided show the resident complained for several years about noise transference from the propertyabove. The records also show that over the years various members of the landlord’s staff attended the resident’s property in relation to the noise issue.
  2. In 2018 the landlord met with the resident in relation to his complaints. The meeting notes document that it committed to install soundproofing in the flat above when the property became vacant. Documents provided by the landlord indicate that void works were carried out in the flat above in 2020 but sound proofing materials were not installed. The landlord missed a golden opportunity to contribute to reducing the noise transference between the properties. This was distressing for the resident and affected the residents trust and confidence in the landlord.
  3. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if the noise complaint was being dealt with under the landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy or neighbourhood management policy.
  4. As part of its stage 1 response, the landlord proposed that it would carry out a home visit to the resident. The resident’s position was that the landlord had previously carried out several visits to no avail and requested the landlord visit the flat above to inspect the flooring situation of the flat.
  5. This was a reasonable request from the resident and would have enabled the landlord to understand if the resident above was in breach of tenancy conditions in respect of the installation of wood flooring or laminate. There is no evidence the landlord attempted to find this out.
  6. The resident provided the landlord with a recording of the noise which the landlord listened to. Members of the landlord’s staff team listened to the recording but did not agree about the nature and extent of the noise. However, the landlord failed to take any further steps to understand the nature and extent of the noise. This was unreasonable.
  7. In its stage 2 final response, the landlord advised the resident that its position was that it was not required to carry out any further investigations into the noise and it would set an uneconomical and unaffordable precedent to install sound proofing materials.
  8. This response was unfair and unreasonable because it did not have a precise understanding of the nature and duration of the noise experienced by the resident and did not acknowledge that it had previously committed to installing soundproofing when the flat above became vacant.
  9. The resident experienced distress and a feeling of there ‘being no end in sight to the noise’ or his complaint about it. The resident has told the landlord and this Service that this negatively affected his mental health and the ability to enjoy his home.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not consider the individual circumstances and long history of the case and did not consider the impact of ongoing noise on the resident’s mental health condition and wellbeing.
  1. The landlord had a duty to thoroughly investigate the residents reports of noise. It cannot demonstrate it had a true understanding of the nature and duration of the noise the resident was experiencing, and it did not visit the upstairs flat as part of its investigation to find out if acceptable floor coverings were in place as set out in the tenancy agreement.
  2. The landlord appears to have overlooked its prior commitment to install sound proofing materials to the flat above when it became vacant. Accordingly, there was maladministration in the handling of the residents reports of noise transference.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident’s stage 1 complaint form stated the nature of the resident’s disability and the need to have communication over the telephone or face to face. The landlord failed to make reasonable adjustments so it could communicate the outcome of the complaint to the resident in line with the resident’s communication need and failed to ensure he understood its response.
  2. The Regulator of Social Housing’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard states that a “registered provider shall provide choices, information and communication that is appropriate to the diverse needs of their tenants in the delivery of all standards.”
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states “Landlords must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and may need to adapt normal policies, procedures, or processes to accommodate an individual’s needs. Landlords must satisfy themselves that their policy sets out how they will respond to reasonable adjustments requests in line with the Equality Act and that complaints handlers have had appropriate training to deal with such requests.”
  4. The documents provided to the Ombudsman show the landlord was aware the resident had a communication need due to dyslexia and it had documented this on the resident’s tenancy records.
  5. The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s internal communications indicate the landlord was resistant to making reasonable adjustments when it needed to communicate with the resident.
  6. The resident requested the stage 2 complaint letter be read to him over the telephone in the presence of his advocate. The landlord advised it did not have the staff capacity to do this. This was not appropriate.
  7. The decision not to adapt its service delivery was unreasonable and likely to damage the landlord tenant relationship.
  8. Additionally, the Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses did not acknowledge the negative impact of the noise transference on the resident’s mental health.
  9. Throughout the complaint process the resident made clear disclosures about the serious impact of the noise transference on his mental health. There is no evidence the landlord responded to these disclosures by making further enquiries or referring the resident for support. This was unsympathetic and the landlord failed in its duty of care to the resident.
  10. Accordingly, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. 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 transference from the property above.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the resident a total of £700 pounds. This comprises £600 for its failings in the handling of the residents reports of noise transference and £100 for failing to communicate the outcome of the complaint according to the resident’s needs.
  2. The landlord must carry out a case review and consider ways in which it can honour its commitment to install soundproofing materials and update the resident.
  3. The landlord must apologise and make reasonable adjustments in their communication with the resident.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s publication Spotlight on noise complaints – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
  2. The landlord should consider it’s approach to reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act.
  3. The landlord should consider creating an alert on the property record of the flat above so teams such as voids, lettings, repairs and maintenance are aware of the noise transference issues and can consider these when the property becomes vacant.