East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202123570)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123570

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

18 October 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 response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. On 10 June 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that he could hear an electrical buzzing noise whilst in his home. The resident had previously reported being disturbed by the same noise in 2018and 2019however, the issue had eventually resolved itself. The landlord’s operatives attended the property on 12 June 2020, but were unable to locate the source of the noise.
4. Between July to November 2020, the landlord continued to inspect the resident’s property to ascertain what might be causing the noise, attending on numerous occasions, without success. Although not been provided as evidence, the landlord has stated that the resident raised a complaint in November 2020, explaining that he felt that the landlord could be more proactive in resolving the noise issue.
5. The landlord responded to the complaint in December 2020. It told the resident that it would arrange another inspection for a surveyor and electrician to inspect the surrounding properties for the source of the noise. Additionally, the landlord said it would raise an order for a nearby lamppost to be checked, as the resident suspected this was the source of the noise. It asked the resident to keep a diary of when the noises occurred, to establish if there was a pattern. The resident escalated his complaint in June 2021, stating that he was dissatisfied that the noise issue was still ongoing. He was also unhappy that he had to contact the electrical company and Environmental Health Department (EHD) himself, regarding this issue.
6. The landlord’s internal correspondence states that one of its officers had explained they had previously informed the resident that it was his responsibility to contact the relevant third parties. It then sent its complaint response in December 2021, after a panel had reviewed the resident’s complaint. It explained that since the resident had reported the noise issue, it had investigated the buzzing on many separate occasions, undertaking checks to the lampposts in the area, collecting diary sheets and speaking to the resident’s neighbours. The landlord concluded that a number of proportionate actions had been undertaken in relation to the resident’s complaint, and that there were no more available actions to be taken. It did however conclude that there were delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. It offered the resident £200 compensation in recognition of this.
7. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he has explained that he remains unhappy with how the landlord handled his reports of the buzzing sound, and feels that it could have done more to resolve the issue. He feels that the amount of compensation offered by the landlord does not reflect the severity of the issue and the impact that it has had on him.

Assessment

Scope of investigation:

8. The resident has explained how the landlord’s failure to resolve the buzzing noise has impacted his health. Although the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience of the situation on the resident, it cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. This is an accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

The landlord’s response to reports of noise nuisance:

9. As it was initially unclear if the buzzing was from inside the resident’s flat, it was appropriate for the landlord to at first respond to the reports as if they were a repair issue. The landlord’s website states that it will respond to non-urgent repair reports within three months. The resident raised his concerns on 10 June 2020, with the landlord responding appropriately, attending well within its repair timescales on 12 June 2020.
10. Once the landlord had established that there was a buzzing noise, but that it did not come from the resident’s fixtures and fittings, basic customer service would be for the landlord to take reasonable steps to investigate the noise. Due to the uncertain nature of this issue, there were no defined timescales in which it would have been expected to resolve this matter. The landlord would, however, be expected to take proportionate steps to try and resolve the issue for the resident, while communicating with the resident to manage his expectations.
11. The landlord considered the problem thoroughly, and took numerous steps to try to resolve the noise issue. This can be shown by its repeated investigations, as well as in its actions such as sending a surveyor to inspect the issue in September 2020, and operatives to check the lamppost’s bulb connections and electricity supply in October 2020. The landlord also discussed the noise reports with the resident’s neighbours, and undertook a noise test of the neighbouring flats in November 2020.
12. In response to the resident’s complaint in November 2020, the landlord acted reasonably by sending its surveyor again, to check over the lamppost and surrounding neighbourhood for noise disturbance. It also requested that the resident keep diary sheets, to ascertain if there was a pattern to the noises. The landlord checked the communal boiler in February 2021,and provided equipment to the resident to try to record the noises in March 2021. In May 2021, it also organised a communal shut down of the neighbouring houses’ power, in an attempt to isolate the source of the noise.
13. In response to the resident’s escalation in June 2021, the landlord again sent out a surveyor. As the surveyor could not identify the source, they recommended that the EHD install sound recording equipment. The landlord duly followed this recommendation by sending a request for the EHD to do so in September 2021. Overall, despite the issues continuing, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that there were any clear steps the landlord missed, or further actions it could reasonably have taken to resolve the problem. Accordingly, there was no service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s noise reports, and no grounds on which it should have offered compensation.
14. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it aims to provide a formal response to a resident’s complaint within ten days of their initial contact. If the resident remains unhappy with the proposed resolution, it can escalate to the second stage, which is a panel hearing. This should be arranged within 28 days of the resident’s escalation. The landlord will then write to the resident, detailing the panel’s decision within five working days.
15. Although the resident raised a complaint on 20 November 2020, the landlord was slow to respond, sending its reply on 10 December 2020. The resident did not then escalate until June 2021, which the landlord failed to respond appropriately to. After escalating again in July 2021, the landlord did not hold the second stage panel hearing until 15 October 2021. These responses were outside of the landlord’s stated complaint handling timescales. However, as a result of its panel hearing, the landlord acknowledged that its communication throughout the process and its complaint handling had not been of an acceptable standard. It apologised, and offered the resident £200 compensation in recognition of its failings. These were appropriate and proportionate remedies for its poor complaint handling, and the compensation was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedied guidance for complaints with similar circumstances.

Determination (decision)

16. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress prior to investigation which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.