LiveWest Homes Limited (202341745)

Background

1. The resident moved into the newly constructed mid‑terraced property in April 2023. He first reported noise transference to the landlord in September 2023. He said he was concerned about the level of noise coming through the adjoining wall. His reports related to the same neighbour and included loud music and the neighbour’s dog crying.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s reports in in accordance with its policy.
   2. It was pro-active in its approach to a solution.
   3. It offered appropriate advice and assistance in its search for a resolution.
   4. It used the complaint process to acknowledge failings and offered an appropriate level of redress.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident says he experienced ill health due to the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause and duration of any illness. We did not investigate this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord’s ASB policy states that upon receiving a report it will complete a risk assessment and categorise it as red or amber. The categorisation will then define how the landlord responds. In this instance, it categorised the report as amber. This meant it would acknowledge the report in 48 hours and began investigation within 5 days.
9. In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to determine whether the ASB occurred or who was responsible. Rather it is to assess how a landlord dealt with the reports it received, and whether it followed its policy and good practice.
10. In his initial report the resident raised concerns regarding the level of noise transference through the adjoining wall. He said he had recorded some instances but expressed concern as to the amount he could hear through the wall. The landlord responded appropriately within 24 hours. It advised him to contact the neighbour and alert them to the issue. It also provided diary sheets and directed him to a noise app if the situation did not improve. This is an appropriate first response in addressing noise reports and in line with its policy.
11. Between 8 September 2023 and 28 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on 5 more occasions. In these he referred to the neighbour’s dog whining and other household noises. He alleged he could hear these due to an issue with the soundproofing in the internal wall. The landlord advised that while it does not consider dog noise as ASB, it would speak to the neighbour to discuss a solution. It also offered a subjective noise test to address his concerns. This is a positive response and demonstrates it took the reports seriously.
12. The landlord has provided evidence that it completed a visit to the neighbouring property. It also completed a joint visit with environmental health to complete the subjective noise test. The report notes noises from kitchen drawers and cupboard doors were audible. It advised it would provide cushioning pads as a resolution to this. It also confirmed the building specification with its development manager to ensure minimum standards had been adhered to. These are appropriate actions and demonstrate a proactive response to its investigation.
13. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the test results. He alleged there was an issue with the build quality and highlighted the everyday noises that he could hear. The landlord responded and provided an action plan, this included further testing during its defect inspection of the property. It provided a link to apply for free carpets to help with sound deadening, as well as a renewed offer of mediation. It also asked for his permission for environmental health to install recording equipment. It reiterated he should continue with the noise recording in the interim. This was line with its policy for addressing noise related ASB.
14. In its complaint responses the landlord confirmed that both the residents noise recordings and environmental health tests concluded the noise as not excessive. It also confirmed its defect inspection had found no faults with the building itself. However, in order to explore a resolution, it suggested a further independent noise test. It opened a new ASB case to allow him to provide further reports, advice on housing options and a new housing officer to manage his reports. These actions demonstrate the landlord’s commitment to finding a resolution and are in line with ASB best practices.
15. Overall, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB. It responded to the residents reports in the appropriate timescales and in accordance its policy. It was proactive in its application of noise testing and worked in partnership with external agencies. It also aided in acquiring carpets and explore options for a move to provide a resolution.

16. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If a resident escalates a complaint to stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. These timescales align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The resident raised a complaint on 26 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged this within 3 working days and issued its stage 1 response 9 working days later on 13 March 2024. This is in line with the timescale in its policy.
18. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 March 2024. However, having received no response he approached us for assistance on 11 September 2024. The landlord responded and issued its stage 2 response on 30 September 2024. This was an unreasonable delay of around 6 months from when he first requested the escalation.
19. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged this failing. It apologised and provided learnings on how it had improved its processes. In recognition it offered £300 compensation. This was a proportionate amount and in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected a resident.
20. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to resolve its complaint handling failure. The landlord used the complaints process to identify where the failing had occurred and provided feedback on the learnings it had taken. It apologised and offered an appropriate level of redress.

Learning

General learning

21. The landlord collaborated well with multi-agency partners to complete through checks and showed diligence and transparency. Although the landlord did explain that dog whining and general living noise are not ASB, it could have been clearer earlier about the limits of what it can act on.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord did not log the residents request to escalate his complaint. It should ensure it accurately logs all escalation requests in its complaint management system. It should ensure it acknowledges and responded to these in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Communication

23. The landlord used the complaints process to identify a period of limited communication. Although this was a short period it should ensure it now has a mechanism in place to address this moving forward.