Islington Council (202302456)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302456

Islington Council

29 November 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a beeping noise.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a joint shared ownership leaseholder at the property since 5 February 2016. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. On 29 May 2022, the resident reported that, since 15 May 2022, there had been a beeping sound coming from the ceiling cavity in an en suite bathroom in the property. He said that the noise consisted of 3 equally spaced beeps which occurred every 50-60 seconds. He said that he could also hear the noise in the spare bedroom which meant that no-one could sleep in it. This also affected his ability to work from home. He sent a recording of the noise.
  3. On 31 May 2022, the landlord discussed the issue with the resident. It said that he would need to resolve the problem himself because he was a leaseholder and therefore the noise was not the landlord’s responsibility. It said he could contact the repairs team if he needed further information.
  4. On 11 October 2022, the resident reiterated that the beeping noise was still occurring every 50 seconds. He said that he had consulted an electrician who said that the noise was probably a battery-operated device left in the ceiling cavity during the construction of the building. He said that this was part of the structure of the building and therefore the landlord’s responsibility. He chased a response on 24 October 2022 and 4 November 2022.
  5. The resident made a formal complaint on 4 December 2022. He explained that the noise had affected him negatively for more than 6 months. This was especially problematic because the other bedroom had a leak and was uninhabitable for this period due to the damp and sound of dripping water (this case was also investigated by the Ombudsman under case number 202109673). He said that he had now located the source of the noise, which was an alarm, and removed it. However, as he considered it to be the landlord’s responsibility, he requested compensation for the time and cost of fixing the issue and the nuisance it had caused.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 December 2022 and responded on 19 December 2022. It reiterated its position that it was not responsible for the issue. However, as the resident thought the alarm was left during the construction of the building it had forwarded his concerns to its ‘new builds team’ and asked them to contact him. It did not uphold his complaint.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 29 December 2022. He explained that he had cut into the ceiling cavity to get the alarm and provided videos and photos of this. These showed that a carbon monoxide alarm had been attached via a bracket in the ceiling cavity among the insulation. He said that he was not happy with the stage 1 complaint response because he had not heard from the new builds team.
  8. On 1 February 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. On 1 March 2023, it confirmed that it had accepted the escalation and advised that he would receive a response in 20 working days.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 17 April 2023, which included the following:
    1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.
    2. It agreed that the alarm was left in the ceiling during construction. It acknowledged that the resident had had to investigate the issue himself over several months and had contacted the landlord on numerous occasions. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience this had caused.
    3. It said that the matter should have been referred to the new build team and followed up.
    4. It offered £475 compensation, broken down as follows:
      1. £200 for the time and cost of fixing the problem.
      2. £100 for the time and effort taken to complain.
      3. £100 for the service failure of not responding to his 3 emails.
      4. £75 for the late stage 2 complaint response.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and contacted this Service.

Assessment and findings

Beeping noise

  1. Government guidance says that a carbon monoxide alarm should be installed in every room that is used as living accommodation containing a fixed combustion appliance. Usually at head height approximately 1-3 metres away from the potential source of carbon monoxide. The detector was clearly fitted in an inappropriate location at the time the flat was built. This was no fault of the residents, and the landlord should have taken necessary steps to rectify the situation, but it did not.
  2. Initially the landlord’s repairs team told the resident that the landlord was not responsible for investigating and rectifying the source of the noise. However, in the same email, it also told him to contact its repairs team again if he needed more information, which was confusing. The landlord should have carried out a reasonable and proactive investigation of the report to ensure that the resident was correctly signposted. Its failure to do so cost him time and trouble because he had to contact it again.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 October 2022 to explain in more detail where the noise was coming from. He told it that the issue was within the structure of the property. However, the landlord did not respond to this email or the 2 chaser emails he sent. This showed poor customer service and was a communications failure. The tone of the resident’s emails show that this caused him distress and inconvenience. It also cost him time and trouble because he had to complain.
  4. The beeping noise in the bathroom and spare bedroom persisted for over 6 months. This consistent noise caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and he told the landlord that it meant that he could not work from home and could not use the spare bedroom to sleep in. This caused extra inconvenience because during the same period, the other bedroom had a leak. However, the landlord did not take this into account when it awarded compensation.
  5. The resident resolved the issue himself. He cut 2 holes in the ceiling to find a carbon monoxide alarm fixed to a concrete slab within the ceiling cavity. This cost him further time and trouble. There was also a monetary cost to rectifying the holes in the ceiling. The landlord offered £200 compensation for the time and cost associated with rectifying the issue. It did not ask the resident what the actual cost of materials involved was; however, having discussed the actual cost with the resident, this service concludes that £200 was a reasonable amount to cover this.
  6. The landlord offered compensation to the resident for its service failure in not responding to the emails and for the time and trouble spent because he had to complain. However, it did not consider the distress and inconvenience caused by living with a beeping noise for 6 months or the fact that he could not use the bedroom for sleeping or working in.
  7. The landlord’s housing procedure for refunds, compensation and remedies (November 2019 and the updated version dated April 2022) says that compensation is payable where any room is unavailable for use for 4 weeks or more because of it failing to take reasonable steps to carry out repairs. It states that “compensation should be calculated as follows: weekly gross rent divided by (total number of habitable rooms + 1) x number of rooms affected x number of weeks out of use”.
  8. The landlord failed to take this procedure into account when it calculated the compensation offered to the resident and did not give a reason for this. The weekly rent at the property at the time was £152.45 and the noise occurred for 27 weeks. Using the calculation above, an order to pay an additional £1,029 has therefore been made to reflect that the resident advised the landlord that he could not use the bedroom and the landlord failed to tell him its position regarding this.
  9. Due to the failings identified, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a beeping noise.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy said that the service area responsible would respond to first stage complaints.
  2. The customer service team dealing with complaints about repairs provided the first stage complaint response. However, the complaint was not about this service area. Therefore, the content of the stage 1 response was limited and merely said that another service area would contact the resident to resolve the problem. The landlord should have ensured that it directed the complaint to the correct service area from the outset. This failure cost the resident time and trouble because he had to escalate the complaint.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time (the Code) said that “any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.”
  4. In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it would refer the issue to its new build team, but it did not. The landlord also offered compensation to the resident as part of the stage 2 complaint response. However, he has informed this Service that he has not received this payment. This failure to adhere to the Code and to use the complaints process to put things right cost the resident further time and trouble escalating the complaint. It also undermined his faith in the complaints process.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy said that it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of receipt. However, the landlord took 24 working days to acknowledge its receipt and 75 working days to respond. This unacceptable delay and failure to follow its own policy caused the resident further distress. It also delayed his access to an investigation by this Service.
  6. The Code also said that complaint handlers should be able to act sensitively and fairly and that residents are more likely to be satisfied with complaint handling if the person dealing with their complaint is empathetic.
  7. The stage 2 complaint response said that the time taken to complain and chase the issue would have been frustrating. However, to improve its complaint handling the landlord should have shown empathy regarding the effects that living with a beeping noise would have on the household. Particularly considering that the resident said he could not work from home or use the spare bedroom for sleeping when it was needed due to the leak in the only alternative bedroom.
  8. The landlord offered £75 compensation for the delay in providing a stage 2 complaint response. However, this does not reflect the other complaints handling failures identified. Therefore, an order to pay a total of £150 has been made to reflect the time, trouble, and distress caused. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer.
  9. Due to the failings identified there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a beeping noise.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise. A senior member of staff to apologise in writing for the failures identified in this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident directly a total of £1,579 in compensation. Broken down as:
      1. £1,429 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the noise over a prolonged period, this includes the landlord’s previous offer of compensation plus an additional amount as detailed above.
      2. £150 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures.
    3. Provide a briefing note to repairs staff regarding the best way to handle issues identified with construction in new build properties outside the defect liability period, such as in this case. A copy of this to be provided to this Service also.
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadline.