Bromford Housing Group Limited (202211617)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211617

Bromford Home Ownership Limited

26 June 2023

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:
   1. The resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
   2. The subsequent complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder and the landlord is a housing association. The property is a second-floor flat.
3. In the evidence provided is a noise diary and an account of events from the resident’s perspective that seems to be provided for the local authority. The diary lists noise from the neighbour above from 29 September 2021, to 14 March 2022. According to the resident’s diary, on 18 February 2022 the landlord contacted her in response to allegations made by the neighbour. In this call the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbours above had been banging, stomping, jumping, drilling, hoovering and making crashing sounds in the mornings. It is not apparent when the landlord was given this diary, although there is a reference to it being attached to an email to the landlord in October 2022.
4. In response the landlord arranged for the resident to download a sound recording app for her phone on March 2022. The resident’s phone did not work properly, so it arranged for the resident to have another phone. On 8 April 2022, the resident confirmed she had downloaded the app. In May 2022, due to the resident having difficulty using the app,the landlord contacted the local authority (LA)asking them to install sound recording equipment for the resident(this equipment was later installed by the LA in September 2022).
5. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 9 June 2022. She stated that the neighbour above her had been making noise and waking her up every day at 6am since September 2021. She stated she had tried to mediate, and that she had made the landlord aware that she found the recording app “not fit for purpose”.
6. On 10 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that it would close its ASB investigation (it is not apparent from the evidence when it opened the case). The resident made another complaint on 19 July 2022, as she had not received a response to the first complaint.
7. The resident contacted this Service on 1 September 2022, saying she still had not received a complaint response from the landlord. We contacted the landlord asking it to respond to the resident, but due to a miscommunication it did not receive our correspondence until 4 October. We told the landlord the complaint was about its handling of the resident’s noise reports, and that she wanted it to investigate the flooring and insulation between the neighbouring properties.
8. An internal email from the LA to the landlord dated 8 November 2022 states that the LA had installed audio recording equipment, but it had not recorded anything which the LA would consider to be noise nuisance. It noted that the main sounds heard appeared to be footsteps.
9. The landlord provided its stage one response on 8 November 2022. It apologised for the delay and explained this was due to a cyber-attack and being unable to access its housing records. It stated that the flooring had been investigated in June, and it had written to her at that time explaining its findings that the flooring put down by the neighbour it met its expectations and tenancy agreement terms. It also stated that there was insufficient evidence of noise nuisance. The noise that had been reported was general household noise of a family with young children that woke up early each day. It explained how the resident could use her phone app to capture noise evidence, but said it would consider any other meaningful evidence she could provide. It also referred to the information from the LA, which confirmed no formal conclusion of noise nuisance.
10. On 8 November 2022, the resident requested her complaint be escalated. She felt the stage one response did not take into account the full detail she provided in her complaint and did not accept that children were making the noise but that it was the adults making the noise. She also stated she wanted to be moved.
11. The landlord provided its stage two response on 1 December 2022. It said it believed it had been thorough in trying to find a solution for the resident. It reiterated that the flooring met its expectations and that the recordings only confirmed generic household noise, but would look at other evidence the resident could provide. It was unbale to proceed any further based on what it had been provided with so far and did not uphold her complaint.
12. The resident brought her complaint to this Service because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

13. In her recent correspondence with this Service the resident asked that the landlord remove some of the information it holds about her. That is not something in the Ombudsman’s remit to order. Such a request must be made  by the resident directly to the landlord. If necessary, advice can be obtained from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), and contact details for the ICO can be found online at its website.

Handling of noise disturbance

14. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour and tenancy breach procedure states that it will not investigate actions which amount to a resident going about their normal everyday activities. In this case the landlord investigated to determine there was not any noise nuisance. It had listened to the recordings made by the resident and could not hear anything that indicated noise nuisance. It had inspected the apartment above and found that the flooring met its expectations and terms of the leaseholder agreement. It explained in detail how and why it had reached that decision. The landlord had also asked the local authority install sound recording equipment in an attempt to capture evidence. The LA explained to the landlord that it had done so, but found none.
15. Based on the lack of evidence the landlord closed its ASB case for the resident on 10 June 2022. However, it stated that if the resident was to provide new evidence it would investigate further. In this case, the landlord did what it was obliged to do in regard to investigating the resident’s noise concerns. It advised her of the app to download, assisted her with using it, including providing her with a phone. When the landlord reviewed the recordings it only confirmed general everyday noise and it closed its investigation based on that evidence, explaining that it would look at any new evidence provided as per its policy. It also investigated the flooring of the neighbour and found it to be up to its expectations as per the neighbour’s tenancy agreement.
16. Noise transference is an everyday part of flat living and there are limited formal options any landlord has in attempting to resolve it. There is no indication in the evidence that the transference is the result of any repair issues, which a landlord would be obliged to address. Noise transference is often exacerbated by the type of floor coverings used, and in this case the landlord inspected and explained specifically why it concluded the neighbour’s efforts in this regard were appropriate. The details captured by the resident in her noise diary support the landlord’s conclusions about the noise being everyday living, as do the audio recordings from both the noise app and the LA. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports was reasonable and in line with its policy and basic practice.

Complaint handling

17. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a stage one complaint within five working days and provide a complaints response within ten working days of the complaint being logged. The resident made complaints to the landlord about its handling of her noise reports in June and July 2022, but she received no response and needed to ask this Service for assistance in September 2022. In its first complaint response the landlord acknowledged there had been a delay, and explained this was due to its computer records being impacted by hacking, meaning it could not access the relevant information. That is an understandable reason for not being able to provide a complaint response. However, there is no evidence of it providing any updates to the resident, explaining why its response would be delayed, or managing her expectations. These are basic fundamentals of customer service and good practice, and also part of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Their omission shows poor complaint handling.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of noise disturbance.
19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

20. In light of the landlord’s delayed complaint handling and lack of updates or explanation for the resident, it is ordered to pay her £125 for the frustration and inconvenience caused.
21. This payment must be made within four weeks of this report. Evidence of payment must be provided to this Service by the deadline.