Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202318239)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 4-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident reported noisy floorboards to the landlord from late 2022. The landlord investigated the issue and while it concluded it was not its responsibility, it agreed to carry out repairs to reduce the noise. The landlord carried out work discussed in the complaint on 28 June 2023 and on 14 August 2023, then completed further works in January and March 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about  the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of noisy flooring.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. No maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of noisy floorboards.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Decision about floorboard repair

4. The landlord completed both repair jobs in a reasonable time so we have not seen its decision to do one after another caused significant delay. The landlord later completed further works to attempt meaningful repair, exceeding its repair responsibilities.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint within the timeframes set out in the Code which caused the resident frustration. It also provided incorrect information in its stage 2 response demonstrating it did not investigate this complaint thoroughly.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s flooring

6. The resident first reported noise from the landing flooring in August 2022. We have seen evidence the landlord initially referred the issue to the builder as a potential defect, then investigated itself. She then raised the same issue in the bedroom and the bathroom in February 2023. The landlord did not identify any structural issues with the flooring during investigation in 2022 and 2023, which meant the repairs were not its responsibility under its policy.
7. The resident has not raised concerns about its investigation so we will not look at the appropriateness of this. However, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s repairs following planned carpentry work and inspection in May and June 2023, when the landlord decided to carry out repairs to resolve the noise.
8. On 2 June 2023 the landlord inspected the property and identified noise in an area of the landing, around a bedroom entrance, and the bathroom. It planned to take up the floor in these areas and refit part of it to add fixings to try and reduce the noise. It then planned to relay the flooring, with new vinyl in the bathroom.
9. On 5 June 2023 the landlord raised a planned carpentry job for the landing and bedroom. The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response it would wait to raise the second job because:
   1. It needed a specialist contractor to replace the vinyl flooring.
   2. Due to health and safety it could not have 2 workforces present at the same time.
10. It completed the initial work on 28 June 2023, 18 working days after it raised it. The following day, and on 29 June 2023, the landlord raised a planned bathroom job with its specialist contractor. It completed this second job on 14 August 2023, 33 working days from the initial one being raised. While the landlord has no set timeframes for planned repairs it completed both repairs within reasonable timeframes. Therefore we have not seen separating the jobs caused significant delay. Additionally, the landlord provided reasonable explanation of its decision related to the different nature of the 2 jobs.
11. After completing these repairs we have seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s further reports of the noisy flooring and agreed to ‘foam’ the flooring to reduce noise. It completed this in 2024. This was a reasonable step to take to attempt to find a solution and explore further options.
12. The resident confirmed this resolved the issue in the bedroom and bathroom but not in the hallway. However, the feedback from the landlord’s contractors in the landlord’s repairs log state that the issue with the noise following the repairs was minor, they struggled to hear further noise, and the options to resolve the hallway flooring were exhausted.
13. We have seen evidence of the landlord being responsive, and resolution focused. Despite the issue not being identified to be a structural concern, it explored various options to resolve it and made a meaningful attempt to repair. It tried changing and fixing boards and foaming to resolve the resident’s concerns. The landlord exceeded its obligations in responding to the resident’s concerns, and we found no evidence of service failure.

14. The timeframes of the landlord’s policy are overall in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy say the landlord has:
    1. 3 working days to acknowledge the complaint.
    2. 10 working days to respond at stage 1.
    3. 3 working days to decide if it will escalate to stage 2.
    4. 20 working days to respond at stage 2.
15. The resident sent us evidence she submitted a complaint on 3 June 2023. The landlord said it received it on 9 June and acknowledged the same day. While the exact date of receipt is unclear, the landlord acknowledged the complaint in a reasonable time.
16. The landlord’s stage 1 response was undated, and there’s no evidence of when it sent this. The evidence provided by the resident shows that she received the letter on 17 June 2023 which suggests the landlord sent it in time. However, this lack of documentation from the landlord demonstrates a record keeping issue.
17. It is unclear when the resident requested to escalate to stage 2. We cannot confirm the landlord was aware prior to 27 November 2023. After our involvement, it acknowledged the stage 2 escalation 2 days later, on 29 November in line with its policy. As such we are satisfied that the landlord acknowledged at stage 2 appropriately.
18. In its stage 2 acknowledgement, the landlord said it would respond within 10 working days. While it is good the landlord tried to offer a response as quickly as possible, this is a shorter deadline than its policy. It did not meet this deadline and requested an extension to 27 December 2023, which was in line with the Code. It missed this new deadline by 7 working days, and responded on 9 January 2024, which was not in line with its policy or the Code. The resident contacted us while waiting for a response expressing her frustration.
19. In its stage 2 acknowledgement the landlord said it would contact the resident to discuss her concerns. It later asked her to call it instead as it had been unable to contact her on the number provided. The resident told us at the time it had made no contact attempts. We do not have enough evidence to determine whether the landlord did try to contact the resident effectively.
20. However, it is evident from the landlord stage 2 response that it did not conduct a thorough investigation into the issue. In its stage 2 response from January 2024, it failed to acknowledge that the works the resident raised concerns about had already been carried out following its stage 1 response, and in June and August 2024. Instead it again confirmed its stage 1 decision and said it planned to carry the works out as it initially decided. While this error had not affected its overall resolution to the noisy flooring, the landlord could not demonstrate that it had appropriately checked and relied on its repairs log. As a result, it provided incorrect and confusing information in its final response.
21. Our remedies guidance says service failure is when there is a failing that has a minimal impact and has not significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. We have seen the missed deadlines caused frustration to the resident and she also reported that she felt the landlord had not responded to her complaint fairly. To remedy the frustration, time and inconvenience the landlord caused to the resident by not acting in line with its policy and the Code, we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 in compensation.