Clarion Housing Association Limited (202312961)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat. She is unhappy the landlord has not resolved an issue with noise coming from the flat above hers. She said it has not followed up with promises it made in its stage 2 response to install carpet in the upstairs flat and carry out an acoustic survey.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise
   2. reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Noise

5. The landlord made commitments to the resident in its stage 1 response. It has failed to deliver on these in more than 2 years since. It has not provided the resident with a reasonable explanation for this failure.

Complaint handling

6. While there were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling, it recognised these in its complaint responses. It apologised and offered appropriate compensation.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

7. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 May 2022, shortly after moving into the property, to say that noise from the upstairs flat was a problem. The landlord’s records show it booked an appointment for 21 June 2022 to meet with the neighbour. However, its records do not show this appointment went ahead. There is no evidence it took any action at that time, which was not appropriate.
8. Between June and August 2022, the resident continued to report noise, which she said got worse. She said she repeatedly got told something would happen that week, but it never did. In September and October 2022, she sent diary sheets to the landlord. We have seen no evidence it reviewed these, which was not appropriate.
9. On 12 October 2022, the landlord booked a further appointment for a visit on 21 October 2022. We have seen no explanation for it not trying to rearrange this appointment sooner. This appointment did not go ahead and was eventually rebooked for 10 March 2023. The landlord’s records indicate it had some difficulties arranging an appointment with the neighbour. However, there is insufficient evidence to show it made reasonable attempts via different channels to make contact with them.
10. The landlord’s records show it dealt with the resident’s concerns under its Tenancy Management Policy, rather than treating it as antisocial behaviour. This was appropriate as there was no evidence of the noise being made intentionally. We are not aware of the specifics of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement. However, its policy said it considered activities such as fitting hard or laminate flooring without its permission to be a tenancy breach. The policy says that where a tenant fails to provide access when requested, it will take enforcement action.
11. The landlord visited the neighbour’s property on 13 March 2023. It found that they did not have any flooring in some rooms, and lino in others. As there was no hard/laminate flooring it concluded there was no tenancy breach. It is not for us to decide whether the neighbour has breached their tenancy, but to consider if the landlord’s actions were reasonable to resolve the resident’s concerns. We are satisfied that at this stage its actions and engagement with the neighbour to resolve the issues were fair and proportionate.
12. In May 2023 the landlord recommended the resident contact the local authority’s Environment Health team to ask it to investigate the noise. This could have been a useful step to identify if the noise level was a statutory nuisance. However, given the landlord was aware of a lack of flooring in the upstairs flat, it could have done more itself through its Tenancy Management Policy before directing her to an external agency.
13. The resident raised her complaint on 12 June 2023 as she felt the landlord was only considering the neighbour’s needs and not hers. On 6 September 2023 it responded to an enquiry from her local MP. It said the neighbour was not in breach of their tenancy but it was working with them to explore further options for flooring.
14. The Environmental Health team contacted the resident on 6 September 2023 and said it had not found evidence of a statutory nuisance. It said the recordings she had provided constituted everyday noise but did say that the neighbour’s lack of carpets may be a factor in noise transmission.
15. In it stage 1 response of 28 September 2023 the landlord acknowledged the poor record keeping had led it to fail to follow up when appointments with the neighbour were cancelled. It said that although the neighbour’s lack of flooring was not a tenancy breach, it could be contributing to the noise the resident was experiencing.
16. The landlord said it was currently obtaining quotes from a flooring company to provide flooring to soften the noise. It said it would be in contact shortly to arrange a survey to assess for the possibility of soundproofing works. These were reasonable proposals from the landlord. However, it failed to set clear timescales for these actions, which was the reason the resident subsequently asked it to escalate the complaint.
17. In its stage 1 response the landlord also acknowledged that the resident had told it she had uploaded recordings from the noise app. It said it would try to locate these and review them. We have seen no evidence that it reviewed any recordings or contacted her if it was unable to locate them, which was not appropriate.
18. In its stage 2 response of 24 November 2023, it acknowledged it had not been in touch as promised and offered £50 compensation to recognise this. However, its response did not provide any update on its proposal to assess for soundproofing or a clear plan in relation to fitting flooring, so this response was not reasonable.
19. The landlord’s internal records of 9 January 2024 show the resident told it the noise was ongoing. It said it had tried to call and knock the neighbour’s door to arrange an appointment without success. It said it would write to them to request a visit but there is no evidence it did this. There is no evidence it made any further attempts to resolve matters after this.
20. In relation to the neighbour’s tenancy, limited detail can be included in this report for reasons of data protection. However, records provided by the landlord do not show it has made any attempts to resolve tenancy issues it has been aware of since July 2024. These issues are therefore not a valid reason for it to have made no further attempts to follow through with installing flooring or carrying out a soundproofing assessment.
21. The landlord’s records show it did initially make some attempts to work with the neighbour to resolve the noise problem. It is evident it did have some trouble arranging appointments with them. However, there were long periods of inaction throughout its initial investigate and a lack of follow up contact with the resident.
22. The landlord’s records fail to demonstrate it has taken any action to resolve the resident’s noise issue since the conclusion of its internal complaints process, despite promises to do so. We have seen no evidence of any communication with her to explain any ongoing difficulties or any attempts to find alternative solutions for her. It has not acted in line with its Tenancy Management Policy, which allows for a range of escalating options to resolve situations like this.
23. The resident has told us the ongoing noise is distressing for her. She said that she chased the landlord during 2024 in relation to the promises it made in its stage 1 response. However, she said it stopped responding to her and nothing has progressed. We have seen no evidence the resident continued to report noise to the landlord after 2024. So, we cannot say for certain it was aware that the issue had not resolved itself. However, it should have done more to resolve the issue when the resident did report it and should have fulfilled the promises it made in its complaint responses.
24. The resident has told us she wants to move but has been unable to agree a mutual exchange as the noise from upstairs has been off-putting for people who have visited. This has left the resident in a difficult situation. She has had to live with the noise for more than 2 years since the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process.
25. We have made our compensation award in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failing by the landlord which has adversely affected the resident and it has made no attempts to put things right. These failures have caused her distress and inconvenience and impacted her enjoyment of her home.

26. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 39 working days after she raised it (12 June to 4 August 2023) – outside its complaints policy timescale of 10 working days
    2. it sent its stage 1 response 39 working days after acknowledging the complaint (4 August to 28 September 2023) – outside its policy timescale of 20 working days
    3. it did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request
    4. it sent its stage 2 response 32 working days after she requested the escalation (11 October to 24 November 2023) – within its policy timescale of 40 working days
27. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures at both stages and apologised for these. Its offer of compensation of £300 was proportionate to its failings and in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

28. The landlord has demonstrated a failure to adhere to its tenancy management process. If it had followed this process, it is likely it would have been able to follow through on its commitments to the resident and carry out work to reduce noise transference.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. By its own admission, the landlord did not keep good records. This led to its failure to rearrange cancelled appointments, delaying progress in the noise case. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights that without good data management, landlords may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data. This could include better training, clearer guidance, or more support for staff.

Communication

30. The landlord’s records do not show that its communication was good. During its initial investigation into the noise, it did not keep the resident updated and she often had to chase it for updates. Following the conclusion of its internal complaints process, it failed to keep her updated at all and did not explain why it was unable to follow through with its commitments. It should be more proactive in keeping its residents updated while issues remain outstanding.