Fareham Borough Council (202417935)

Background

1. The property is a mid-terraced house. The landlord described the walls between the resident’s and neighbouring property as “very thin” in an email from September 2021. The landlord is aware the resident lives at the property with her son who has multiple health issues and requires 24-hour care.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for soundproofing.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

Landlord’s response to the resident’s request for soundproofing.

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for soundproofing.

Complaint handling

5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s response to the resident’s request for soundproofing.

6. The landlord used its complaint process to explain its position regarding soundproofing, which was reasonable. It apologised and offered compensation in recognition of poor communication, which it had identified.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord missed 2 opportunities to clarify the complaint with the resident. There was no evidence it sent a second complaint response to cover “other aspects” of the complaint, as it said it would.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

For further context, the resident reported noise issues from the neighbouring property between 2015 and 2018. The previous neighbours were moved and new neighbours moved in around Christmas 2018. The resident reported noise from the new neighbours which led the landlord to consider soundproofing around August 2019, and again in August 2021. The landlord started possession proceedings against the resident’s neighbours in January 2021. It wrote to the resident on 11 April 2022 and said:

a. It had settled out of court.

b. The neighbours would be moved ‘within the next 18 months’ (by October 2023).

The neighbours moved out around the end of April 2024.

What we did not consider

8. The history of events are noted above for context, and we acknowledge there was ongoing reports of noise during this time. But there was no evidence the resident raised the issue of soundproofing or made a formal complaint in relation to the lack of soundproofing until the end of May/early June 2024. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. Therefore, we will consider events from June 2023 onwards (12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint).
9. The resident believes her son has been discriminated against. This stems from the perceived unfairness of the landlord’s treatment of her family in comparison to her former neighbours. While the serious nature of this matter is acknowledged, we cannot make a finding of discrimination. Whether or not the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 have been adhered to is a matter that may only be decided by a court of law.
10. The landlord is a local authority and some of the services it provides do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman, but instead fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The Memorandum of Understanding between the Housing Ombudsman and the LGSCO sets out the complaints that each Ombudsman is responsible for considering. This states that the LGSCO considers complaints about actions and decisions made by environmental health services. The Housing Ombudsman can only investigate the local authority in so far as it was acting in its role as landlord. Therefore any action/inaction by the local authority’s environmental pollution and nuisance team will not be assessed.

11. The landlord’s website says:
    1. Shouting and banging doors are common types of noise complaints.
    2. Residents can speak to their neighbours or keep a noise diary.
    3. If the problem continues, residents can report noise nuisance to its environmental pollution and nuisance team.
12. The evidence showed the resident regularly reported noise coming from the neighbouring property between August 2023 and January 2024. This included banging on the kitchen walls and shouting. In an email to the landlord on 22 January 2024 the resident said she “was told before new tenants were put in [the neighbouring property around Christmas 2018], the property will be properly soundproofed.” The landlord responded 3 days later. It:
    1. Acknowledged the resident’s frustration the neighbours had not moved.
    2. Did not comment on the soundproofing.

It would have been reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations regarding soundproofing at this point.

13. The resident asked the landlord to install sound monitoring equipment on 11 February 2024. The evidence showed the landlord contacted its environmental pollution and nuisance team promptly the next day. It asked for the sound monitoring equipment to be installed “as soon as practically possible”, which was reasonable. It was unclear exactly when the equipment was installed, but the resident emailed the landlord on 4 March 2024 and said:
    1. “The equipment was being collected the following day.
    2. There was not a lot to report and the exercise felt like a waste of time.”
14. An internal landlord email dated 5 June 2024 said it had received an email the resident was unhappy no soundproofing would be installed in the now void property. The landlord’s used its stage 1 complaint response to explain its position regarding the soundproofing, which was reasonable. In an email to the landlord on 11 June 2024 following the stage 1 response, the resident said:
    1. The cost of soundproofing the neighbouring property would “pale in comparison” compared to what the landlord had spent on her neighbours.
    2. She had lived at the property for 26 years and had “no issues whatsoever” for 16 of those years.

The landlord then used its stage 2 complaint response to reiterate its position regarding the soundproofing. However, it acknowledged miscommunication that the resident was incorrectly assured soundproofing would be installed. And said the next residents would be a sensitive let. This was a reasonable approach to take given the history of the resident’s reports about the neighbouring property.

15. We acknowledge this has been a stressful and difficult time for the resident, and she will feel these words are an understatement. However, while she was told soundproofing would be installed in the neighbouring property, there was no evidence to confirm she was told this at any point after August 2021, within the scope of this investigation. Further to this, the resident said she has lived at the property for 16 years with no noise issues. The evidence showed the landlord considered her request to soundproof the neighbouring property, which was reasonable. However, it has a limited budget and a responsibility to manage its resources effectively, and was entitled to decline the request. The landlord’s apology and offer of a £50 shopping voucher was reasonable given the circumstances. There was therefore reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for soundproofing.

16. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. It says it will:
    1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
    2. Acknowledge a complaint escalation to stage 2 within 5 working days and send a stage 1 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
17. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 June 2024. It said the complaint referred to soundproofing of property and to let it know immediately if this was not the case. The resident emailed 2 days later and said she wanted to enquire whether the “entire situation will be acknowledged and investigated.” The evidence suggests the landlord considered this, as the stage 1 response escalated to us said the complaint “contains other aspects” and a response would be sent “by separate cover.” However, there was no evidence:
    1. A second complaint response was ever sent.
    2. To confirm whether the resident’s complaint was clarified.

These were failings. 

18. The resident emailed the same day of the stage 1 complaint response and said she had not received a separate complaint response. This was a second missed opportunity for the landlord to contact the resident to clarify exactly what she wanted to complain about, and chase up the second complaint response. The failure to do so has meant the scope of this investigation is limited to the resident’s request for soundproofing.
19. There was no evidence the resident has raised further noise complaints or requests for soundproofing since her new neighbour has moved in. However, there was also no evidence the landlord has contacted the resident following the stage 2 response. It would have been reasonable for it to do so to check there are no ongoing issues. Given the:
    1. Failure to send another complaint response as outlined in the stage 1, or give any explanation on why this was not sent/required.
    2. Failures to contact the resident:
       1. In relation to the scope of the initial complaint on 2 occasions.
       2. Following the stage 2 complaint.

A finding of maladministration is made in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. An order of £200 compensation is made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.  

Learning

20. The landlord said it has learnt from the complaint and made significant improvements. This included the introduction of a new antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy in September 2024 and staff training. This is positive.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s record keeping for this case was of a reasonable standard.