London Borough of Hounslow (202216549)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216549

London Borough of Hounslow

14 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of building noise reported by the resident.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and has lived in the property since October 2020. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the second floor of a supported housing complex.
The resident first reported that she was hearing noise from the radiators on 4 October 2022. The landlord attended to inspect them and found no issues. On 11 October 2022, the resident reported that the communal lift was making a loud noise. The maintenance company responsible for the lift attended and while they found no faults, they did switch off a fan that may have been generating noise.
The resident reported further noise issues on 27 October 2022, and she believed the noise was coming from the boiler room. It is unclear what type of noise was reported. She made a complaint the same day as she felt the situation was not being managed appropriately. The landlord attended again and checked the district heating system along with the resident’s radiators. No noise or defects were detected. An unplanned home visit was attempted by the landlord on 2 November 2022 to assess the noise further, however the resident was not home.
The landlord replied to the resident’s complaint on 11 November 2022. It stated that it was unable to address the complaint as the issue did not fall under its complaint definition. It stated it was satisfied with how it had responded to the noise complaints and that it had followed through with the actions it had promised. It agreed to continue to monitor the situation and provided the details for the resident’s housing officer as a future point of contact.
On 15 November 2022, the head of property compliance visited the property with a mechanical engineer. They checked the lift and boiler room, and no noise or defect was detected. That night, the landlord proposed that the resident stay in the ‘guest flat,’ which she did. After 2 hours, the resident returned to her own property as she felt the noise was worse in the guest room.
The landlord noted at the time that there had been no other complaints about noise from other occupants of the building or any visitors who had used the guest room.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 18 November 2022 asking for an update on the noise investigation. She stated that there was a “pump” noise somewhere in the building, and she was planning to see a doctor as she was unable to sleep.
The landlord responded to her on 21 November 2022 reiterating that staff had attended and not heard any noise. It also confirmed to her that no other residents had reported the noise, and the property manager, repairs team and head of property compliance had all visited and found no issues. It recommended she speak with her GP to determine whether she had a medical condition which was affecting her hearing.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 16 December 2022 requesting clarification on why the resident’s complaint of 27 October 2022 had been rejected. The landlord issued a stage 1 acknowledgement the same day advising that the resident would receive a response by 16 January 2023
The resident’s grandson emailed the landlord on 9 January 2023 stating that he could hear a “pump noise” which started intermittently and then became continuous.
On 16 January 2023, the landlord’s stage 1 response was issued, stating:
1. The original noise complaint was reported on 27 October 2022 and the first attendance by the landlord was 2 November 2022, however no-one was home.
2. The tenancy officer visited the scheme manager who clarified the resident’s concerns.
3. The repairs team checked the lift and heating system, and no noise or defects were found.
4. No other residents had highlighted any noise concerns.
5. The tenancy officer visited again on 15 November 2022 and walked around the flat to try and hear the noise however nothing was heard.
6. The resident was given the opportunity to stay in the guest flat, which she took, however she left after 2 hours as she said the noise was worse. No other residents, staff or previous occupants had ever reported a noise in that room.
7. The complaint was not upheld as the landlord determined that it had taken appropriate actions.
On 13 February 2023, the landlord confirmed with the resident that she had received the stage 1 response. It also informed her that if she was dissatisfied with the outcome, she would need to explain her reasons and advise on what outcome she was seeking.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 February and 16 February 2023 to get an update on her complaint. On 15 March 2023 she advised the landlord by email that she wanted to escalate to stage 2 of the complaints process. On 20 March 2023, the landlord said that it had not received a request for stage 2 escalation and asked the resident to advise her reasons for requesting escalation, and the desired outcome. She responded the same day to say she was unhappy as no–one believed that there was a noise, and no-one had been in touch to visit again.
The resident chased the landlord again on 12 April 2023 to ask why her complaint was closed and chasing a stage 2 response. Upon receiving no response, she informed the Ombudsman who contacted the landlord on 9 May 2023 to chase the response on behalf of the resident. The landlord confirmed stage 2 escalation on 10 May 2023 and offered a response time of 20 working days.
An inspection of the lift took place on 31 May 2023. Notes state that the lift maintenance company ran and assessed the lift several times, but no faults were detected.
A stage 2 response was issued by the landlord on 7 June 2023. It confirmed that the complaint was not upheld and reconfirmed the actions that had been taken to investigate the noise. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 13 June 2023 that she was unhappy with the response.
The landlord completed a ‘resident risk assessment’ on 28 July 2023, noting that the resident was reporting the noise was still present and that all checks had been done without any indication of faults.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of building noise

It is acknowledged by the Ombudsman that people experience noise levels differently, and it is difficult to standardise the effect that certain noises may have on an individual. Some people may be particularly sensitive to noise, while others may have varying degrees of impairments or a greater ability to ‘zone out’ noise.
The resident’s frustration with the noise she experiences is clear from her correspondence, and wholly understandable. It must be emphasised that this investigation cannot confirm, based on the evidence available whether there is a noise problem or not. This is because the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether a landlord has acted reasonably and fairly based on the information and evidence it had before it.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy specifies a 20-day timescale for routine repairs. While noise complaints are not specifically mentioned, it is reasonable that the checks on the radiators and lift would be completed as routine repairs. Following each noise report from the resident, the landlord attended the property within the appropriate timescale to investigate.
The landlord sent a lift engineer on two occasions, to assess whether the lift was fully functional and whether any abnormal noise could be detected. It also checked the resident’s radiators when she believed they were the source of the noise. Following the resident’s report that the communal boiler was making the noise, the landlord sent a contractor to check the boiler and pipework and it was found to have no faults.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that the communal boiler room is directly above her bedroom, and the bedroom is the main room in which she hears the noise. She confirmed that the landlord has visited to see if the noise could be heard however she doesn’t feel it was there long enough to fully assess it.
The landlord relayed the outcome of these checks to the resident during the complaints process, however she has informed this Service that she had not seen any proof of what checks were completed and had not been spoken to by any of the attending contractors. She has concerns that checks were not completed correctly, particularly given the noise was still a concern at the time of this report. While the landlord may not be required to provide full copies of engineer reports, it would have been good practice for an engineer to meet with the resident and talk her through the assessment. It would be reasonable to conclude that there would be some noise associated with the general function of the boiler given its size. This could have been explained to the resident and may have explained the noises she was hearing, where they were coming from, and whether they were vital to the operation of the system.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the email from the resident’s grandson. Given this was the first occasion that another individual had reported hearing the noise, the landlord should have contacted him to complete additional fact–finding around what kind of noise he had heard, and at what time.
Although the resident has no specified vulnerabilities, given the nature of the accommodation and her distress at the situation, the landlord could have made more effort to reassure her during its investigations. However, it was a positive step that the manager of the accommodation allowed the resident to try and sleep in a guest room. Even though it did not prove to be successful, it showed that the manager was considering the resident’s wellbeing.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she asked the landlord to install noise monitoring equipment. She said the landlord would not fit this and advised her to record the noise on her phone and provide it with any recordings. Although she attempted to do this, she said her phone was not sensitive enough to pick up the noise. We recognise that monitoring equipment is more often used for antisocial behaviour or statutory nuisance cases, so is allocated on a priority need. That said, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to put the resident on the list for when equipment became available. This would have been helpful in drawing the case to a conclusion as, given the sensitivity of the equipment, any noise would be picked up.
Based on the evidence above, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of noise reports from the resident. While the communication could have been improved to further reassure the resident, it did take appropriate action to try and resolve the issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about:
1. Failure to follow process.
2. Failure to follow the landlord’s own policy.
3. Significant or repeated failure to provide a service.
4. Failure to do what it said it would do.
5. Failure to respond.
Following the resident’s complaint on 27 October 2022, it stated that it would not accept the complaint as it had followed process and provided a service by responding to her noise report and completing a home visit.
The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in force at the time of this complaint set out the standard expected by the Ombudsman in complaint handling. It stated “a service request is a request from a resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. Service requests should be recorded, monitored, and reviewed regularly. A complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request.” Additionally, in cases where a complaint is refused it called for a clear explanation to be given to the resident with the reasons why. The resident must also be made aware that they can approach the Ombudsman for support, and that if the Ombudsman does not agree with the complaint being excluded it may instruct the landlord to take the complaint.
The resident had expressed dissatisfaction as she felt the landlord’s attendance had not resolved her noise issue, and so this should have been logged as a complaint. While the landlord believed it had taken the necessary steps to address any noise issues, it should still have opened the complaint and investigated as the resident was unhappy with the actions it had taken. Once the complaint was logged following the involvement of the Ombudsman, the stage 1 response was issued within 10 days. In this response the first noise report was listed as 27 October 2022, however the first report was on 4 October 2022. While this has no impact on the outcome of the complaint, it does suggest that the case had not been thoroughly investigated for the stage 1 response.
The request for escalation on 15 March 2023 was missed by the landlord potentially as it was directed to an alternative e-mail address. The resident had to request it again on 20 March 2023 and following this request there was no acknowledgment until the Ombudsman’s further involvement on 10 May 2023.
The landlord should have measures in place to monitor all methods of communication and act upon any requests from residents swiftly. The time between the stage 2 escalation request originally being made by the resident and official acknowledgement of the request was 37 working days. While there is no set time for acknowledgement at stage 2 in the landlord’s complaints policy, the Ombudsman would expect it to broadly mirror the stage 1 acknowledgement timescale of 5 working days.
The stage 2 response was issued within 20 working days of its acknowledgment which is compliant with the landlord’s policy and the Complaint Handling Code. However, from the day the complaint was made by the resident until the stage 2 response, it was 152 working days. Within this time, the resident had to ask the Ombudsman to intervene twice, first when the complaint was refused by the landlord and then again when the stage 2 escalation request was not acknowledged. This caused an additional element of stress for the resident, as she had told it in earlier correspondence that she felt ignored, and that she was seeing her doctor as she had “had enough.”
The landlord did not apologise for the delays in its process at any stage, and instead reiterated the actions it had taken to address the noise issue. It did not consider the effect that the protracted complaints process had on the resident and the fact that she had to continuously chase for updates. She was still experiencing distress throughout this time as, in her view, the noise issue was unresolved, and this was not considered by the landlord. No explanation was provided for its change in stance on accepting the complaint in the first place, however it is reasonable to conclude that this was a result of the Ombudsman’s involvement. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, and an order for compensation will be made at the end of this report to reflect the inconvenience experienced by the resident.
We also note that the landlord’s complaint policy has not been reviewed since 2017 and contains incorrect information regarding the process for residents approaching the Ombudsman. A recommendation will be made at the end of this report for the policy to be reviewed and the information corrected.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of building noise reported by the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay the resident £200 in relation to its complaint handling.
The landlord should confirm compliance, with evidence, with the above order to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should ensure that it monitors all forms and avenues of communication to ensure no important correspondence from residents are missed.
2. The landlord should consider arranging a meeting with the resident, the accommodation manager, and a heating contractor with the aim of:
  1. Explaining what checks were completed on the heating system and the outcome.
  2. Explaining what noise is indicative of the system functioning correctly, and therefore cannot be stopped.
  3. Considering other ways in which staff can assess the noise the resident is experiencing, for example completing a thorough check of the residents bedroom, or providing a point of contact for the resident to call when she hears the noise who can visit the address and assess the noise level.
3. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord should update its complaints policy to reflect the current process for residents approaching the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The landlord should confirm its intentions regarding the above recommendations to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.