Newlon Housing Trust (202344449)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat within a converted property. In January 2023, she reported that noise transference from the flat above was keeping her daughter awake at night. She was concerned about the type of floor covering in the flat above.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of delays to resolve noise transference.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of delays to resolve noise transference.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that:
   1. Although there were initial delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports it proactively sought a permanent solution even though there was no obligation to. It consulted with contractors to explore its options and provided the resident with a solution, including an explanation of the timescales involved.
   2. Although the landlord used the complaints process to explain its findings, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. This caused her additional time and trouble.

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.

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.

5. The landlord’s noise policy states it will contact the resident within 2 days of it receiving a report. It may request the resident complete diary sheets and use its noise recording app to assess its response. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord contacted the resident following the initial report. The records are silent until around 7 weeks later. This caused the resident additional time and trouble because she had to chase the landlord for a response.
6. In March 2023 the resident complained to Environmental Health. It referred the matter back to the landlord as these reports did not meet the criteria for it to investigate. The landlord reviewed the sound recording provided and, following Environmental Health’s advice, the landlord arranged soundproofing tests. This was an appropriate response and reflects the landlord’s commitment to investigate the root cause.
7. The landlord’s contractor completed the soundproofing test in May 2023. The landlord had to coordinate access with the resident, her neighbour, and the contractor, which led to a delay in it completing the tests. The landlord acknowledged this delay within its stage 1 response and compensated for this.
8. The contractor’s tests found the building did not meet the current soundproofing requirements set out in Part E of the Building Regulations. However, as the building was converted into flats around 1960, the landlord was not required to make retrospective adjustments to the building fabric. Therefore, any work is at its discretion.
9. The records show the landlord continued to proactively engage with contractors to explore soundproofing options. It also provided updates to the resident explaining initial quotations were not viable due to cost, but it was exploring alternatives. These included surveying the above property to assess if installing carpet would help mitigate the noise. This demonstrates its commitment to explore options and find a lasting solution.
10. In her complaint the resident raised concerns regarding the delay with the landlord installing soundproofing. In its complaint responses, the landlord recognised there had been delays in sourcing a specialist contractor and apologised. In recognition it offered £410 compensation. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for a service failure of this duration.
11. The landlord further provided a proposed start date of 26 February 2024 along with an estimated timescale of 21 days for completion. However, it said the resident did not agree to its proposal and requested it install the soundproofing from the above property. The landlord advised this would require a new survey and different soundproofing option, which was likely to cause further delay. It also stated as this was not the recommended option, it could not guarantee the result. This was an appropriate response and presented the resident with the relevant information.
12. Throughout the timeline the landlord has shown a commitment to provide a permanent solution, even though there was no requirement under regulation. It maintained communication with the resident while it explored options, given the resident’s concerns. Where it identified failures, it apologised and offered reasonable redress.
13. The resident has advised us that the works remain outstanding. The landlord has also provided evidence to show it is seeking a resolution with the resident. As such, we have made a recommendation above.

14. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
15. The resident raised a complaint on 13 November 2023. The landlord responded the following day and acknowledged the complaint. It requested an extension on 29 November 2023 and issued its stage 1 response 10 working days later on 13 December 2023. This was in line with the timescales in its policy.
16. The resident responded on 19 December 2023 to escalate her complaint. However, there is no record the landlord acknowledged this request. She contacted the landlord again on 25 January 2024 to repeat her escalation request. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the original request caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuing a resolution.
17. The landlord acknowledged this second request 11 working days later on 9 February 2024. It issued its stage 2 response 20 working days later on 8 March 2024. It made no reference to the delayed escalation within its response.
18. While its responses gave details of the reasoning for its actions, it failed to acknowledge the short delay in recognising the resident’s escalation request. Even though this delay did not affect the overall outcome for the resident, it resulted in minor inconvenience, time and trouble. We order, the landlord to pay the resident an additional £25 for the time and trouble caused to her by this delay.

Learning

Learning finding

19. It may be beneficial to the landlord to clearly explain the extent of its repair obligations to manage resident expectations. Where the landlord commits to carrying out works it should be clear on the limitations involved.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. This case highlights the importance of keeping clear and timely records to show that a landlord has followed its noise policy. In this case, no record of contact with the resident was provided after her initial report, despite a requirement to respond within 2 days. Clear records of contact, decisions, and next steps help support accountability and effective case management.

Communication

21. This case highlights the importance of timely and clear communication with residents, particularly where delays occur. Here, there was no evidence of early contact following the initial noise report, and the subsequent delays required clarification through the complaints process. While the landlord later provided updates, explanations, and timescales, earlier communication could have helped to manage expectations and reduce the resident’s time and trouble.