Sovereign Network Group (202227398)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat in a purpose-built block. She has previously reported noise nuisance from neighbouring properties.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord identified failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise. It acknowledged these in its stage 2 response but did not provide an appropriate remedy.
6. The landlord handled the complaint in line with its policy and provided detailed responses to the resident.

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.

7. The resident raised her concerns about noise to the landlord on 9 October 2023. She said there was noise coming from the neighbouring property and that this was impacting her.
8. The landlord did not treat this initial report as antisocial behaviour (ASB) report. The landlord explained to the resident that household noise was not automatically considered as ASB under its ASB policy. This was appropriate and is in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints.
9. The landlord contacted the resident’s neighbours and reminded them to be considerate. This was a reasonable and proportionate step to take. It responded to her reports by asking her to keep a diary log of noise incidents and to submit examples of the noise through the noise app. This allowed the landlord to get a better understanding of the type of noise the resident was experiencing and the actions it needed to take. Based on the information it received the landlord identified that the noise she was experiencing was normal household noise.
10. The landlord installed sound monitoring equipment in the resident’s property on 21 November 2023 and collected it on 13 December 2023. The landlord has explained that there were delays in installing the device due to staff illness, it apologised for this in its stage 1 response.
11. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that there had been delays in accessing the data from the sound monitoring equipment. It explained that this was due to technical issues and not having the correct software to access the device. This was a failure and did not show that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.  It also has not provided evidence to us showing when it analysed the data and what the analysis showed. This points to a record keeping failure.
12. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it completed an inspection of the property as part of its investigation but could not provide any evidence of when the inspection took place or what it identified as a result. It apologised for this. This also points to a further record keeping failure.
13. The landlord took some positive actions to try to resolve the resident’s concerns about noise. However, the delays in accessing the data from the sound monitoring device and the lack of evidence from the inspection mean it has not shown it considered all reasonable solutions. It identified these failures in its complaint responses but did not take steps to resolve them.
14. This is likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as she has been left awaiting an outcome and chasing the landlord for an update on how it will resolve the situation. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it can make payments for delay and for distress at a weekly rate when appropriate, but it did not do this despite accepting that the resident was experiencing delays. The length of the delay experienced by the resident is unclear.
15. Our compensation orders are based on our remedies guidance. The failures in the landlord’s handling of the complaint were not substantial and did not change the outcome for the resident. Our remedies guidance says that when the landlord has identified failures that has adversely affected the resident, but has failed to address the detriment to the resident, a payment of £150 is appropriate.

16. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge all complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days. It says it will provide a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It also says that an escalation to stage 2 must be made within 30 days of the stage 1 response being issued.
17. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 November 2023 and asked to escalate a previous complaint to stage 2. The complaint was raised in January 2023 and so the landlord considered this to be out of time under its policy. Instead, it offered to raise the issue as a new stage 1 complaint. This was appropriate and showed a positive approach to handling complaints.
18. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 November 2023. This was in line with its policy timescale. It received the resident’s escalation request on 20 February 2024. This was outside of the 30 day timescale for an escalation given in its policy. However, it is positive that the landlord allowed the escalation. It provided its stage 2 response on 4 March 2024in line with its policy.
19. The landlord’s stage 2 response gave in depth answers to all elements of the resident’s complaint. It explained its position clearly and concisely and provided appropriate evidence of the steps it had taken as part of its investigation into the complaint. It also gave appropriate advice to the resident regarding her concerns.

Learning

20. The landlord’s investigation into the reports of noise were not handled effectively. It should ensure it is able to access and analyse data from the sound monitoring equipment it uses to prevent delays in future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. There were significant failures in the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord should ensure it properly documents the findings of inspections it carries out. It should provide this information to the Ombudsman when asked.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication with the resident was not always consistent or regular. It should ensure it keeps residents informed about the actions it is taking when concerns have been raised.