London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202322934)

Background

1. The resident complained that the landlord sent her a noise nuisance letter which falsely informed her that her car alarm was causing nuisance. She also complained that the landlord failed to put its mistake right once it became clear the car in question was not hers.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled:
   1. An allegation of noise nuisance against the resident.
   2. The resident’s subsequent complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Service failure in how the landlord handled an allegation of noise nuisance against the resident.
   2. Maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s subsequent complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acted in accordance with its noise nuisance policy when it wrote to the resident to advise her of the allegation made against her. However, it then missed opportunities to address her concerns and reassure her she had been misidentified in July and October 2023.
5. The landlord’s stage 1 response exceeded the timescales set out in its policy by 5 months. It failed to update the resident during this time and provide updated timescales. It also failed to acknowledge this delay at either complaint stage. This was not in line with its policy our our Complaint Handling Code.

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.

What we have not considered.

6. On bringing her complaint to us, the resident raised issues of discrimination and equality. She said that she felt like the landlord had victimised her on account of her race. We do not determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. However, we have looked at how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns and whether it acted fairly in the circumstances, based on its duties and policies.
7. The resident also complained that the landlord’s decision to send her a noise nuisance letter has caused her PTSD. This investigation has not considered any potential impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s mental health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this part to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.

What we have considered.

8. The landlord’s policy on noise nuisance sets out that, after receiving a complaint, it will contact the alleged perpetrator to “ask them to consider what they are doing and ask them to stop anything which may be causing the noise problem.”
9. On 28 June 2023 a neighbour emailed the landlord and reported that the resident’s car alarm had been sounding repeatedly during the night. On 29 June 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised her of the allegation made against her. Significantly, the letter noted that its staff had not witnessed the events described, and that it intended to advise her only that an allegation had been made.
10. The landlord acted as per its noise nuisance policy by sending this letter. We have seen the letter, and it does not go any further than informing the resident that an allegation had been made. This was an appropriate and proportionate action.
11. The resident then contacted the landlord on 3, 4, 6, and 7 July 2023 to express her unhappiness about the letter. We can see the landlord attempted to call her back on 3 July 2023, but the call did not connect. It also emailed her on 11 July 2023 and invited her to get in touch to discuss her concerns. It acted positively by doing so. However, the resident did not respond. We consider this was a reasonable timeframe within which to offer the resident the opportunity to discuss the situation.
12. However, we note the landlord then incorrectly advised the resident on 28 July 2023 that it had discussed her concerns “at length”. There is no record of any phone call or meeting with the resident. Therefore, the landlord was incorrect to advise her of this. We also note that the resident replied to this email on 4 October 2023 and explained that she had not yet discussed her concerns with the landlord. The landlord did not reply to this email. This was a missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns.
13. Therefore, the landlord acted in line with its policy when it sent the resident the noise letter. It then made reasonable attempts to contact her in early July 2023 to discuss her concerns. However, its email of 28 July 2023 incorrectly claimed that it had addressed these concerns. It then missed an opportunity contact her and address her concerns in response to the resident’s 4 October 2023 email.
14. The landlord has not acknowledged these omissions in its communication, and therefore, we will order it pays some minor compensation to put this right. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £50 to £100 are typically sufficient to put right failings which have caused minor impacts.
15. The resident has complained that receipt of the letter caused her severe distress. However, we have not identified any service failure in this decision. Therefore, the only impact which we have addressed here is the frustration caused by the minor communicative failures we identified. We do not consider these failures could reasonably be described as causing anything beyond minor impacts.. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation to put this right.

16. The landlord’s complaint handling policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and issue a response within 10 working days of this. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and issue a response within 20 working days of this. When it is unable to meet these timescales, it will explain this to residents and provide updated timescales. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
17. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the nuisance letter on 4 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged this within its timescales on 7 July 2023. On 28 July 2023 it advised the resident it would close her stage 1 complaint unless she asked it to issue a “further response”. It explained that it considered it had already addressed her concerns at length. As explained above, there is no evidence of any contact between the resident and landlord in which it addressed her concerns. Therefore it should have progressed with issuing a stage 1 response.
18. We note the resident did not reply to the landlord’s 28 July 2023 email to advise her concerns remained unaddressed until 4 October 2023. However, even if we accept that this accounts for some of the delay, the landlord failed to acknowledge the 4 October 2023 email or issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of this.
19. Ultimately, the landlord delayed in issuing a stage 1 response for over 5 months until 13 December 2023. It also failed to explain the reasons for this delay and provide updated timescales. This was a failing and not line with its policy. We note the landlord then addressed the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 4 January 2024 within its timescales.
20. Given the landlord has not acknowledged any stage 1 complaint handling delays, we will order it to pay some compensation to put this right. Given the length of the delay, we have ordered it to pay a sum at the top of our compensation scale for failures leading to minor impacts.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s email of 28 July 2023 indicates record keeping omissions given it cited a phone call or meeting which there is no record of.

Communication

22. The landlord missed opportunities to contact the resident from late July 2023 and reassure that she had been misidentified as the owner of the nuisance vehicle before its stage 1 response.