B3 Living Limited (202227991)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227991

B3 Living Limited

18 June 2024

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 reports of:
   1. Light pollution.
   2. Noise transference.
   3. Smells in the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom bedsit. The resident has been diagnosed with misophonia.
4. On 3 March 2021, the resident reported concerns with noise transference from the flat above. The landlord advised the resident that building regulations for the property had been met. It advised the resident to speak to her neighbour regarding the noise. The resident raised the noise transference again on 15 July 2021, and also raised concerns about light pollution from a streetlamp. The landlord confirmed on 29 September 2021 that it would look into the streetlamps.
5. The resident made a complaint on 20 July 2022. She advised that her front door was difficult to open and that she was not happy with the lack of response to her concerns about noise transference. She was also unhappy regarding the response to her reports of light pollution, and she advised the landlord that there was a smell in her property.
6. The landlord visited the resident and emailed the outcome of this visit on 26 August 2022. It advised that during the visit it had noticed a “dampish” smell from the walls. It advised this had been passed for investigation.
7. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 25 November 2022. It apologised for the significant delay in its complaint response. The landlord confirmed that it did not own the streetlamp. It stated it had spoken to the estate management company that was responsible for the streetlamp, who advised it had been installed under the correct regulations. The landlord also confirmed that the property was built to the correct sound proofing standards, and that additional steps were taken to enhance sound proofing. It stated that it was unable to take action against day-to-day noise that had been reported. It recommended that the resident continue to use the noise app to report sounds. The landlord confirmed it would inspect the property for damp and moisture to investigate the reports of smells.
8. The landlord completed an inspection of the property on the 6 December 2022. It cleaned the bathroom fan and duct. It noted there were no abnormal smells. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 December 2022. She advised that the issue with smells was ongoing. She also stated that she had previously had different information from the landlord, regarding environmental health’s response to the streetlamps. The resident also disagreed with the landlord saying the property met the regulations for sound proofing. She raised concerns that the property above had laminate flooring which was impacting on the noise.
9. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 28 February 2023. It advised it could not investigate the lighting further and advised the resident to contact the estate management company in the first instance. If the resident remained unhappy, she could consider contacting environmental health. The landlord reiterated that the building met noise proofing standards. It also stated that the noise recordings were normal day-to-day noise. The landlord advised that it had inspected the property for smells. It also conducted a second inspection on risers and loft spaces and did not find anything of concern. It had checked the building drawings for any possible areas of concerns. It advised there were no void spaces that could have broken pipes or leaks. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
10. The resident would like the noise transference issues and the smells investigated by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The landlord has advised that the streetlamps are not owned by it, but by an estate management company. Under paragraph 41.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. The Ombudsman can therefore not consider the placement of the streetlamp or any effects of the streetlamp on the resident. We will however consider the response the landlord provided to the resident in relation to this.

The landlord’s handling of reports of light pollution.

12. The resident raised concerns about light pollution on 15 July 2021. The landlord should have responded to the resident and been clear about what action it could or could not take in relation to this. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any response to the resident until 29 September 2021. That response stated that the landlord was looking at ways to deal with the street lighting as environmental health were not happy with the positioning of the lighting, and that the lights had not yet been signed off by planning. The Ombudsman is aware that the member of staff that was dealing with the complaint had a long-term illness and subsequently passed away. Ideally the landlord should be providing a continuity of service, however the Ombudsman recognises the difficult circumstances. Given that the streetlamps were out of the landlord’s control however, the Ombudsman considers the impact of the delay to be minimal.
13. The resident raised the light pollution in her formal complaint, dated 20 July 2022. The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 August 2022 and on 29 September 2022 as she had not had contact from the landlord. The landlord should have been responding to the resident. This is recognised in the complaint handling section later in this report.
14. The Ombudsman has seen emails from 10 November 2022 between the landlord and the estate management company in which it requested drawings of the estate. It also asked about shields for the streetlamps. The estate management company responded that shields were not required.
15. When the resident escalated her complaint, she advised that she had received contradictory information from the landlord. She advised that she had been told in September 2021 that environmental health was unhappy with the positioning of the streetlamps, and that they had not yet been signed off. However, the stage 1 complaint response stated that the streetlamps were installed under correct regulations. The landlord checked the information with the estate management company and with environmental health. The information the resident was originally given was incorrect, based on subsequent investigations. Although this may have been frustrating for the resident, due to the circumstances, the landlord could not check why the resident was given incorrect information in the initial instance. It took the appropriate action to obtain the correct information and provide the resident with this.
16. The landlord emailed environmental health on 5 January 2023 to ask them to check the drawings of the estate and advise if the streetlamps caused any issues. Environmental health advised that this matter had not been raised with them previously, and that the resident would need to contact the estate management company in the first instance. They advised they could then consider a complaint if the resident believed the lighting to be a statutory nuisance. The landlord made the resident aware of this in its stage 2 response.
17. There were delays in the landlord responding to the resident. The Ombudsman will consider delays relating to the complaint in the complaint handling section of this report. In addition, although the delays were frustrating, the Ombudsman considers that these did not have an impact on the outcome for the resident.
18. The landlord appears to have provided information which was incorrect. However, the Ombudsman recognises that there were issues beyond the landlord’s control in confirming why that advice had been given to the resident. The landlord subsequently conducted a thorough investigation into the streetlamps, despite the streetlamps not being owned by it. It attempted to support the resident, by obtaining information that may help the resident to raise the matter through the correct channels. As the landlord completed a full investigation into the streetlamps, and provided the resident with the correct information, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of light pollution.

The landlord’s handling of reports of noise transference.

19. The resident raised concerns of noise transference on 3 March 2021. The landlord confirmed that building regulations relating to sound proofing had been met. It suggested the resident speak with their neighbour regarding the noise, as the neighbour may be unaware of the effect this was having. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 May 2021 stating that she had not spoken to the neighbour due to anxiety. The landlord provided the correct advice in the first instance, to ask the neighbour to deal with the issue informally.
20. However, on becoming aware that the resident was struggling to take action, the landlord should have considered additional support it could have provided the resident. Although this is best practice, the Ombudsman is aware that the resident subsequently confirmed she had spoken to the resident on 21 July 2021. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the impact of not providing additional support was minimal.
21. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident stated she raised noise concerns each month between January and April 2022. She stated that she did not get a response. The Ombudsman has not seen these reports, however we do not dispute that these were made. The landlord should have responded to the resident. If the landlord considered that the noise was not something it could investigate, it should have made this clear in the response. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident. This may have caused frustration to the resident.
22. The Ombudsman has seen emails from the landlord asking to visit the resident. The resident confirmed she would be available on 4 May 2022. The Ombudsman is unsure if this visit went ahead, as there are no notes regarding this. Visiting a resident is a positive action in trying to deal with noise complaints. The landlord should ensure it records visits and the outcome of these.
23. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 May 2022 to advise that she was woken in the night by the neighbour using the stairs. The resident stated that she spoke with the neighbour and that things got quieter. However, she requested that the neighbour’s behaviour and noise transference be investigated. The landlord responded the following day, asking if the resident wanted the landlord to speak to the neighbour, or if the resident was satisfied as she had raised it with the neighbour herself. The landlord also stated that the building regulations would have been signed off, and that if the resident had concerns that she would need to have an independent party check. The landlord took the correct action in asking the resident how she wanted it to respond to the noise complaint regarding the neighbour. It was also appropriate to confirm that the building regulations had been met. In reference to an independent check, this may not have been an appropriate suggestion for the resident, as it would incur a cost. However, the Ombudsman considers that there was no further action the landlord needed to take at this time.
24. On 21 November 2022, the landlord requested a robust details certificate, or soundproof testing from the developers of the property. This was in response to the landlord beginning its investigation into the resident’s complaint. The landlord took appropriate action to consider the resident’s concerns that were raised in her complaint.
25. In its stage 1 response the landlord advised that the noise recordings it had been sent by the resident were general living noise. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy confirms that day-to-day noise is not something it can investigate. The landlord responded in line with its ASB policy by advising the noise reported was not something it could investigate further. The landlord asked that the resident continue submitting her concerns via the noise app. It was positive that the landlord reassured the resident that it would continue to work with the resident, to address any new issues.
26. The landlord was advised by the builders on 25 November 2022 that sign off certificates could not be found but that all plots had been registered with robust details specifications. The landlord confirmed that for the property to be registered with these specifications, the correct level of sound proofing had to be met. As the landlord had been unable to identify unacceptable noise through the recordings provided by the resident, or from other residents in the building, and because it confirmed the correct specifications had been met for registration, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord took sufficient action in ensuring the sound proofing was appropriate.
27. On escalating the complaint, the resident raised a concern with laminate flooring. The Ombudsman has seen a picture of a vacant property within the development, showing that it had laminate flooring. It is unclear if this was the flat the resident had made complaints about. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the resident can only install laminate flooring if the resident obtains permission. This is so the landlord can check the underlay being used. Laminate flooring is known to increase noise transference between properties.
28. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that permission was given for laminate flooring in the above property. However, it can also not confirm, based on the evidence, what flooring was in the neighbour’s property. The landlord should be demonstrating that it has considered flooring in its properties, and that this meets the terms of its tenancy agreement. It should also consider this before letting out any properties.
29. The resident reported further noise on 2 February 2023 and 5 February 2023. The landlord confirmed it had spoken to the neighbour on 6 February 2023. The landlord took an appropriate action to try and address the resident’s noise concerns.
30. The landlord held a meeting with the resident on 6 February 2023. During this meeting, the landlord became aware of the resident’s diagnosis of misophonia. The landlord explained to the resident what constituted general living noise. As the resident was upset with the impact the noise was having on her, the landlord completed a referral for single point of access. This was to get the resident support with her mental health. It is encouraging to see that the landlord took time to explain different noise types to the resident. It is also positive to see that when the landlord realised it may not be able to resolve the noise issues, it considered alternative support for the resident.
31. During the investigation into noise transference the landlord also asked other residents if they had issues with noise. The landlord found that no other neighbours reported concerns. Although the resident continued to report noise, the landlord has noted that the recordings would not be considered as antisocial behaviour. When considering noise complaints, the landlord should be considering the complainant and the alleged perpetrator. In this instance, the landlord correctly advised it could not deal with general living noise.
32. The landlord conducted an appropriate investigation into the resident’s concerns that sound proofing did not meet building specifications. The landlord also considered ways to support the resident when it recognised that additional support was needed. The landlord gave appropriate advice around general living noise and that it could not take action regarding this. However, the landlord failed to investigate the flooring in the neighbours flat, and whether this met the terms of the tenancy agreement. It has also not demonstrated that it responded in a timely manner to all reports of noise. As such there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise transference.
33. The Ombudsman has considered the impact of the delays in communication when considering redress. In line with the remedy’s guidance, we consider £100 to be an appropriate amount.
34. The Ombudsman has considered the lack of investigation into the neighbours flooring. As we cannot confirm the type of flooring the neighbour has, and in recognition that any orders should not adversely affect another resident, the Ombudsman has considered a recommendation to be more appropriate. This is for the landlord to consider the flooring and work with the neighbour to see if an amicable solution can be reached. In addition, the Ombudsman is recommending that the landlord consider flooring when letting out void properties. This is to ensure that any flooring the resident is given, does not contravene its own tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s handling of reports of smells in the property.

35. The resident raised a concern of a smell in the property on 20 July 2022. The landlord visited the property and emailed the outcome of this visit on 26 August 2022. It stated that it had noticed a smell from 3 walls in the property that smelt “dampish” and requested internally that this be investigated. No further action was taken by the landlord until 24 November 2022. As already noted, the Ombudsman will consider this period of delay in our assessment of complaint handling.
36. An inspection was completed on 6 December 2022. The landlord found no abnormal smells. It cleaned the bathroom fan and duct and opened it more. It suggested an air quality test. The Ombudsman has not seen whether an air quality test was considered by the landlord. This may not have been appropriate, however, the landlord should be recording why it has chosen not to complete a recommended test.
37. The landlord conducted a further test on 24 January 2023. This was to check the loft spaces and service risers. The landlord noted there was nothing within the property causing a smell. It did state there were nearby fields and a building site. These are sites which are beyond the landlord’s control. The landlord also noted a bin store nearby. It is unclear if this was owned by the landlord. If the bin store was within the landlord’s ownership, it may have been appropriate to investigate whether anything could be done to mitigate smell from this area. However, the reports the resident was making were regarding smells specifically from her property and walls, and as such it is unlikely that the external smells were the source of her complaint.
38. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it wrote that it had also checked building drawings. This was to check that there were no contributing factors that might be affecting smells in the property. This was an additional action the landlord took to fully satisfy itself that the reports of smells had been investigated. The landlord could not identify anything from these drawings that could be causing a problem. This additional step demonstrated that the landlord was taking the resident’s reports seriously, and that it was committed to doing a thorough investigation.
39. The landlord completed 2 inspections to ensure every area of the property was investigated. It also checked building drawings. It was unable to identify any internal concerns during its investigation. Although the landlord noted external smells, it is unclear whether any of these areas are within the landlord’s responsibility. It is also unlikely, based on the resident’s reports, that this was the source of her complaint. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of smell within her property.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

40. Throughout this report the Ombudsman has noted that there was a delay between the resident raising her complaint and action being taken by the landlord. The resident first complained on 20 July 2022. She received no response and made a further complaint on 25 August 2022. The Ombudsman has seen an internal email on 20 September 2022 in which the landlord noted that the resident was becoming frustrated by the lack of contact. The landlord did not appear to have fully investigated the complaint until November 2022. This delay was excessive.
41. Whilst the Ombudsman notes that the delay was excessive, we are also aware of an internal matter with the landlord, in which the staff member who was originally handling the matter became ill and later passed away. The Ombudsman would encourage the landlord to ensure there is a continuity of service for residents. However, we recognise that the circumstances were difficult. The Ombudsman also recognises that the delay would have been frustrating to the resident. Based on the assessments within this report, we have not seen anything which supports that the delay had any impact on the overall outcome of the landlord’s investigations.
42. The resident escalated the complaint on 27 December 2022. The landlord should have responded within 20 working days of the escalation being made. The landlord took 43 working days. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord was conducting an investigation during this time. However, as per the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code the response should be given when the answer is known and not when all outstanding actions had been completed.
43. Both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints responses were in a format that was easy to follow and contained sufficient detail to understand the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman considers the complaint responses to be of a high standard.
44. Although the responses were of a high standard, the delays in responding were significant. The landlord did offer an apology, however, it should have considered some financial redress, in recognition of possible distress to the resident. The Ombudsman recognises the challenges the landlord was facing at the time, and we recognise that the delays did not affect the outcome. However, given these delayed investigations into all 3 aspects of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman considers there to be maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
45. In considering redress the Ombudsman has considered the time the matter was outstanding and the overall impact on the resident. In line with our remedies guidance, the Ombudsman considers £150 an appropriate amount of compensation.

Determination

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of light pollution
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of noise transference.
    3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of smells in the property.
    4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

47. The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £250 compensation within 4 weeks of this report being received. This is broken down as:
    1. £100 for the delay in responding to the resident’s reports of noise transference.
    2. £150 for the complaint handling delays.

Recommendations

48. It is recommended that the landlord investigate the flooring in the neighbouring property. It should consider if this meets the terms of the tenancy agreement. It should also consider if there are options it can explore with the neighbour to minimise the impact of noise transference due to the flooring type.
49. It is recommended that the landlord consider its void policy in relation to flooring. It should consider what actions it can take to ensure that any flooring that is gifted to a resident does not contravene the landlord’s tenancy agreements.
50. If the bin store noted in the landlord’s investigations into smells is in the landlord’s ownership, it should consider whether there are any actions it can take to minimise emissions of any odours.