Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust (202120405)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120405

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust

8 June 2022


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 the resident’s reports of noise nuisance coming from the floorboards above her property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She lives in building of similar properties. Her concerns relate to the property directly above hers.
  2. The evidence provided for this investigation shows the neighbour installed wooden flooring in 2017. The resident raised concerns about the noise transference throughout 2019.
  3. The resident raised her concerns as a formal complaint to the landlord in September 2021. She said the noise was impacting her enjoyment of the property. She said the landlord was responsible for the issue as it had allowed the neighbour to install the flooring. The landlord said the neighbours needed the flooring but was unable to explain why. It said it would investigate alternative resolutions. It offered her £100 compensation for the stress caused, and its delay resolving the matter.
  4. The landlord has since informed this Service that it verbally increased its offer of compensation to £150. It also said it had found alternative accommodation for the neighbours, and they had moved out in December 2021.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service she said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. She said it was insufficient given the severity of the impact the noise had on her. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint she has referred to her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to grant the neighbours permission to install flooring in 2017. She has also referred her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her concerns in 2018 and 2019. The Ombudsman requires complaints to be raised formally with a landlord within a reasonable period from when the issues complained about arose. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that a reasonable period is usually six months. Given the amount of time between the original issue and the formal complaint, this investigation centres on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint in 2021, rather than its handling of her initial concerns, and its decision to grant permission for the flooring. This issues could have been raised as formal complaints at the time by the resident.

Handling of noise concerns

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will determine its offer of compensation based on the duration of the problem and the severity of the service failure.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards between £50 and £250 are suitable for cases where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses (such as repair delays) but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint as she was dissatisfied with the noise coming from the floorboards above, and the landlord’s lack of action. The landlord said it was investigating the matter, but could not explain the specific details of its investigation. It was reasonable for the landlord not to give specific details concerning the neighbour. This is because the landlord has an obligation not to breach any data protection rules. It is therefore understandable that the landlord would have been limited with what information it could divulge. Nonetheless, the landlord reassured the resident that it would liaise with the neighbours and explore other options in order to resolve the noise transmission.
  4. In total the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for its delay in resolving the issue, and for the stress the matter would have caused her. It is understood that the landlord’s offer took into account the historical nature of the issue. Nonetheless, in consideration of the scope of this investigation, and the timeframe that we are investigating, it was a reasonable offer. This is because it was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (as explained above). Although it is understandable that the noise would have undoubtedly been frustrating for the resident, the landlord did take steps to resolve the issue, and as it found a resolution, there is no evidence to show that there was a permanent impact on the resident. As such, the offer was reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.
  5. The landlord has informed this Service that the neighbours left their property in December 2021. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it had followed through with what it had said in its stage two complaint response as it found a reasonable resolution to alleviate the noise nuisance for the resident. It explained that it would ensure the new tenants did not install wooden flooring. As such, it found a pragmatic solution which resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. The landlord’s actions, alongside its offer of compensation were reasonable attempts to resolve the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £150 previously offered, if it has not done so already, as this was the basis of our finding of reasonable redress.