Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202427576)

Background

1. The resident lives on the ground floor of a low-rise block.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
5. We have found that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of noise nuisance

6. The landlord took reasonable steps to identify the cause of the noise and took action to try to resolve this for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

7. The landlord’s stage 1 response was late and lacked detail. While the landlord identified this in its stage 2 response, this was not sufficient to put things right for the resident.

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.

8. When the resident first reported his concerns about noise to the landlord, it immediately opened an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case and began an investigation into the noise. This was in line with its ASB policy.
9. The resident was asked to keep a log of the noise he was experiencing, including the times, dates and types of noise. When these were provided to the landlord, it became clear that the type of noise was normal household noise and not ASB. The landlord’s policy says that this type of noise will not be treated as ASB.
10. The landlord appropriately took steps to identify the cause of the noise and listened to the resident’s concerns about the lack of floor coverings in the flat above. It visited the flat above and found that this was not the case.
11. The landlord took steps to engage with both parties to ask them to be considerate around the noise created. It also explained that the noise was not malicious and was a result of the resident above reasonably using their property. This was positive and shows that the landlord was keen to resolve the issue without judgement or prejudice to either party.
12. It also gathered audio recordings of the noise to inform its decision making on what reasonable steps it could take to reduce the impact of the noise. These recordings confirmed that the noise was household noise and not ASB.
13. The landlord visited the resident and the resident of the flat above and agreed that while the noise was not caused by ASB, it was having an impact on the resident. It considered whether there were reasonable steps it could take to reduce the impact of noise on the resident.
14. As a result of this, the landlord decided to install acoustic underlay to reduce the impact of the noise on the resident. This was a positive step, and shows that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and was willing to take steps to try to resolve this. The resident has said that this did not lessen the impact of the noise.
15. The comprehensive actions taken by the landlord in investigating and attempting to resolve the noise experienced by the resident shows that the resident’s concerns were taken seriously. It tried to limit the impact of the noise but was limited by the structure of the building.
16. The landlord acted in line with its own policies and in good faith to try to resolve the issue the resident was experiencing. Its response was quick and comprehensive and it considered all reasonable options to resolve the resident’s concerns.
17. For these reasons, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

18. The landlord’s complaints policy says that a response at stage 1 will be provided within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
19. The stage 1 response was provided 29 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. This is 19 days later than is allowed in the landlord’s complaints policy. This is a failing.
20. The stage 1 response was also very brief, and although it referred to visit and inspection dates, it did not provide the resident with much information about what the landlord had done to investigate his concerns or the next steps it was going to take. This does not demonstrate an open and positive complaints handling culture.
21. While it is noted that the landlord was in frequent contact with the resident throughout the complaints process, this does not mean that the stage 1 response should not be detailed in its explanations of what had taken place. However, the regular communication does go some way to mitigate the lack of information it provided in its stage 1 response.
22. The shortcomings at stage 1 were further mitigated by the stage 2 response, which apologised for the lack of information and the delay in providing the stage 1 response. It also provided a detailed explanation of the actions taken by the landlord and the reasoning for its decision.
23. While these failures were identified by the landlord as part of its complaint process, we find that an apology alone was not enough to remedy this for the resident. Because of this, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
24. The delay in providing a response at stage 1 and the lack of information contained within this response do not show that the landlord initially took the resident’s complaint sufficiently seriously. It is also likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
25. The landlord’s compensation policy does not set minimum or maximum payments, but instead says that compensation will be fair considering the circumstances of the case. It also says it will have regard to our remedies guidance.
26. Considering there was a delay in providing the stage 1 response, and that the overall outcome was not impacted by the failings, the landlord should make a payment of £50 to the resident. This is in line with a finding of service failure in our remedies guidance.

Learning

27. The landlord acted quickly and effectively in investigating the resident’s reports of noise. Once it identified that the noise was household noise rather than ASB, it acted appropriately. The landlord also had regard for our spotlight report on noise complaints and used the report to explain to the resident why it was not going to continue dealing with the noise as ASB. This shows that the landlord has a positive learning culture and seeks to maintain good relationships with its residents.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord kept comprehensive records of the resident’s reports of noise and the actions it took. This is positive and shows effective information management.

Communication

29. The landlord generally communicated well with the resident and kept him updated with the actions it was taking to resolve the issues he was experiencing. This was positive and shows the landlord understands the importance of good communication with residents.