Cottsway Housing Association Limited (202312919)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312919

Cottsway Housing Association Limited

25 September 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 noise from:

  1. The above neighbour’s (the neighbour) use of water facilities.
  2. A vibration occurring in the early hours.

2.             The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3.             The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since May 2022. The property is a new build 2-bedroom ground-floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.

4.             On 30 May 2022, the resident reported to the landlord noise echoing through her property from the neighbour’s use of toilet flush, shower, kitchen sink, and walking. On 6 June 2022, the resident reported a prolonged heavy vibration noise from an unknown source. Both issues were escalated to the developer (new build within warranty period) for investigation and a plumber job was raised.

5.             Over the next 12 months, the landlord and the developer attempted to find the source of the vibration noise. They conducted home visits, inspections, meetings with the resident and the neighbour, contacted environmental health (EH) for advice and recommendations, and obtained recordings to help identify the source of the noise. Potential sources were inspected and the solar panel inverter was serviced and switched off, but the resident reported that the noise remained.

6.             The landlord and developer investigated the water noise issue and carried out repairs within both the property and the neighbour’s property, including adding more insulation. However, the resident reported that the noise was not reduced by the works. 

7.             The resident emailed the landlord on 4 May 2023, expressing her unhappiness with the ongoing issues and suggesting there were problems with the solar panel inverter cupboard. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 3 July 2023, it said it had:

  1. Identified a potential cause for the water noise and would carry out repairs between 9 and 14 July 2023 (when the resident would be decanted).
  2. Investigated the vibration noise in conjunction with the developer, sought advice from EH, and arranged electrical, plumber, and engineer inspections.
  3. Switched off the inverter, installed air grilles, and was exploring options to add insulation without causing dangerous temperature increases. All elements of the structure met the noise regulation thresholds.
  4. Apologised that it had been unable to establish the source of the noise and understood why the resident had requested an escalation to stage 2.

8.     The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 July 2023, when it:

  1. Acknowledged that the resident remained dissatisfied due to the time taken to resolve the issues.
  2. Detailed the work being undertaken to address the water noise from the neighbour’s property, and acknowledged the disruptive nature of the work.
  3. Apologised for not meeting the stage 1 response timeframes but said the resident had agreed to an extension.
  4. Detailed the actions it had taken to investigate and address the potential causes of the vibration noise, including interviews with other residents, who did not report experiencing the same noise.
  5. Said it continued in discussions with the developer, inverter manufacturer, and EH to determine actions it might take to resolve the noise issue. While it did not have immediate answers, it continued to try to identify the source of the noise and recognised the upset and inconvenience being caused.

9.             The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted the Ombudsman on 21 August 2023. She said the issue persists and she wants the landlord to identify the source of the vibration and stop it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10.        The resident has told this Service that the matters complained of have negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

11.        The resident has also logged other complaints with the landlord and this Service about ongoing issues with ceiling noise from the neighbour’s property, related bathroom works post-12 July 2023 and anti-social behaviour (our reference 202342062) and fire safety issues (our reference 202322451). These matters are being dealt with separately and are not referred to further in this report. The resident should ensure that the correct reference is quoted on any future correspondence, as relevant to the subject of the contact.

The landlord’s handling of noise from the neighbour’s use of water facilities

12.        The landlord’s repair policy sets out that it aims to ‘effectively manage repairs and maintenance obligations, ensuring an acceptable balance between service standards and cost.’ It sets out timeframes for repairs as follows: routine repairs within 20 working days (non-urgent repairs within 90 days); urgent repairs within 5 working days; and emergency repairs within 24 hours. For new homes, the developer is responsible for faults for 12 months from the date of completion.

13.        The resident’s report of the water noise meets the definition of routine repairs, but a period of investigation was required to establish the cause of the noise in the first instance. Until the cause, and associated repairs, were properly identified, the landlord could not carry out any works. Further, as the report was made within the new build warranty period, the landlord needed to escalate the issue to the developer for investigation. It did this whilst also raising a job for a plumber to attend, which were both appropriate actions.

14.        The landlord and developer made several visits to the resident’s property and that of her neighbours in attempts to evidence the noise, establish cause, and to determine whether it was a building wide issue or specific to the resident’s property. Work was undertaken to address the issue by adding more insulation around the soil pipe within the bathroom boxing. The resident, however, reported that the noise had not been reduced by the dampening work carried out, and so in August 2022, the landlord arranged a surveyor visit to take place, which due to availability could not take place until September 2022.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

15.        Throughout September and October 2022, the landlord and developer made multiple visits to the resident’s block to investigate the noise and explore possible causes. Plans were consulted and it was confirmed that pipes and drains were not located in positions likely to generate the noise complained of. Further insulation was then added throughout the ceiling gap, above, and below the floor. All of these were reasonable and proportionate actions to identify the cause and undertake work to address the noise.

16.        In November 2022, the landlord and developer revisited detailed construction plans to confirm insulation levels and soundproofing requirements were met. In December 2022, the landlord made recordings of the noise to email to the developer, and in January 2023 following a visit to the property with a plumber, the developer booked an appointment to carry out further work.

17.        However, the resident requested that the appointment be rescheduled due to health reasons and said she would advise when she was ready for the appointment. She told this Service that she was unable to go ahead with her scheduled surgery due to exhaustion caused by the sleeplessness from the reported noises. Drainage works were carried out on 25 and 26 April 2023, but the resident continued to experience the noise.

18.        In May 2023, at the recommendation of a surveyor, a camera was inserted in the pipes, and it was identified that there was a bend which was the potential cause of the noise being generated. The landlord arranged to carry out extensive repairs between 9 and 14 July 2023 and decanted the resident into temporary accommodation to minimise her inconvenience and disturbance. Again, a reasonable step in the landlord’s action to address the issue.

19.        The resident reports that the work carried out in July 2023 has done nothing to minimise the water noise from the neighbour’s property and has made a further complaint about this. However, in reviewing the events leading up to the July 2023 repairs, this investigation has found that while the landlord was unable to meet the advised repair times, there was good reason for this.

20.        In a situation such as this, it is good practice, and the Ombudsman’s expectation, that the landlord will take appropriate and proportionate steps to verify the report of noise and then take steps to identify what was causing it. It has done that. As detailed above, it made multiple visits, engaged plumbers, a senior surveyor, and undertook work to address identified issues. It is unfortunate that the resident continues to experience the noise, but the landlord has taken reasonable steps to resolve the issues in line with its obligations. As a result, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the noises related to water facilities up to 12 July 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the vibration noise

21.        Both the repair timescales set out above and the principle of repairs being possible only following identification of the noise source was applicable here also. Following the resident’s report, the landlord and developer made joint visits to the property (some were made during staff’s non-working hours, thus going above and beyond). They carried out inspections, met with the resident and her neighbours (additional correspondence and interviews were conducted over months to gather the other residents’ experience of the noise issue), and tried to obtain recordings of the noise or some other evidence to identify its origins so a course of action might be decided.

22.        The landlord considered if the vibration may be linked to the water pipes, electricals, solar panels and inverter (ordering an inspection and servicing of the inverter), or even if it could be the result of antisocial behaviour. It was unable to establish the source or witness the vibration noise during various visits, or in the recordings obtained by EH.

23.        It is noted that an EH operative also made 2 visits to the property outside of working hours but was unable to witness the noise. Even after the landlord’s stage 2 response was issued, it continued engaging with EH, before ultimately exhausting all lines of enquiry. EH has since told the landlord that it is unable to offer any further help in the absence of a source of the noise.

24.        Although the reported timing of the noise did not align with the solar panels or the inverter’s operational times, the landlord contacted the installer and the manufacturer to pursue this line of enquiry. The inverter was switched off over 2 different periods, was later replaced, and ultimately switched off completely. The resident, however, reported that the vibration noise continued.

25.        Regular internal meetings were held to discuss actions taken and possible next steps. The landlord and developer also consulted mechanical and electrical drawings to establish if other equipment could be responsible for the yet unidentified vibration noise. They checked all the equipment in the riser cupboards. They confirmed sound tests had been conducted and passed prior to housing the residents in their properties, and a senior surveyor was engaged to inspect and produce recommendations.

26.        In the lead up to the resident making her complaint, further visits were made by the landlord and developer. Both worked together, consulting mechanical and electrical layouts to ascertain if the noise might be caused by service cables, mains power, telephone or intercom cables. They confirmed that all service entries were sealed on both sides of the cavity wall as they should be. Extractor fan systems were checked and ruled out.

27.        The landlord and developer also explored the vibration and water noise in conjunction with each other to assess if the 2 might be related or emanate from the same source. However, all investigations into the location and placement of water and drainage pipes, electricals, insulation of ceiling voids, and noise comparisons with other properties did not yield a potential source. They considered if the noise might be emanating from outside the property, but the resident confirmed that she had made enquiries and been informed there were no generators in the neighbourhood, therefore, the source was unlikely to be external.

28.        The resident has expressed that she felt passed between the landlord and the developer in her attempts to report the issues. However, this Service has not seen evidence of this. Instead, in all its communications, the landlord has remained engaged with the resident and demonstrated a willingness to liaise directly with her to get to the bottom of the issue.

29.        The resident has also said that she feels her personality was being blamed and that the landlord expected her to locate the source of the vibration noise in order to deal with it. However, this Service has not seen evidence to support this. It is true that the landlord requested recordings and diary logs, but this is because the resident reported that the noise occurred outside normal working hours; thus, making it difficult for the landlord to obtain evidence without her assistance. EH did install recording equipment later, but it was not unreasonable for the landlord to seek evidence from the resident in the first instance.

30.        The landlord employed a multi-agency approach, seeking advice and guidance when it drew a blank in its own enquiries. Evidence has been seen of staff logging in during their leave to reply to emails and enquiries so as to not delay matters and add to the resident’s distress. It is difficult to say what more the landlord could have done to locate and address the vibration noise promptly.

31.        The resident is experiencing this noise regularly and struggling to cope. The distress experienced by her is not in doubt, and the landlord’s awareness of this and desire to find a resolution is reflected in the extensive investigations it has carried out before, during, and after the complaint was raised and addressed.

32.        Regrettably, in the absence of any evidence of the source of the sound, a solution remains elusive. The landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to explore the cause of this noise, and it is now at an understandable impasse; there is nothing further it can do at this stage. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of vibration noise.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

33.        The landlord’s complaints policy effective at the time set out a response time of 8 working days at stage 1 and 5 working days at stage 2.

34.        The resident made her complaint on 4 May 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it the following day, setting out the next steps. However, a stage 1 response was not issued until 3 July 2023. The resident had requested an escalation to stage 2 before the stage 1 response was issued so the landlord followed up with a stage 2 response on 12 July 2023 without a further request from her to do so.

35.        The landlord failed to meet the stipulated timeframes for responding to the resident’s complaint. It had requested and agreed an extension with the resident, explaining that it wanted to conclude investigations and formulate a plan of action before issuing a response. However, it became clear during the extension period that the resident was not happy with the delay.

36.        Further, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time stated that responses to a complaint should not be delayed to deal with the underlying issues or to perform outstanding actions. Therefore, a stage 1 response should have been issued in May 2023, 8 days after the resident made her complaint, as per the landlord’s complaints policy.

37.        In not doing so, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It is, therefore, ordered to write to the resident with an apology and pay £100 for the upset caused.

Determination

38.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:

  1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from:
    1. The neighbour’s use of water facilities.
    2. A vibration occurring in the early hours.
  2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

39.        Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

  1. Write to the resident with an apology (with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate) for its complaint handling failure. It should provide this Service with evidence of having done this.
  2. Pay directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £100 compensation. It should provide this Service with evidence of having done this.