Onward Homes Limited (202232248)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232248

Onward Homes Limited

27 September 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 response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance, and the associated repairs.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat, and his tenancy started in October 2020. The resident’s property has a flat directly above it. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 August 2021 and said that he was experiencing a noise nuisance from the property directly above his. He explained that he could hear his neighbour moving around their property and there was an issue with “banging floorboards”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 January 2022 to make a complaint and said the landlord had not taken any action regarding the “broken floorboards” in the property above.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 2 February 2022, and said that following his reports of noise disturbance it had completed work in October 2021, when the above property was void. It had secured the floorboards and had laid thick underlay and carpets to reduce “excess noise”. It explained this was “beyond [its] standard voids work”. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and said it had done “as much as possible” to mitigate the noise disturbance. It agreed to conduct a further inspection to identify any repairs needed to help resolve the issue.
The landlord inspected the property on 4 March 2022.The resident asked his complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 3 May 2022 and said that “nothing had materialised” following its inspection, and he wanted it to address the “inadequate soundproofing”. The landlord then sent the resident the outcome of the inspection on 4 May 2022.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 13 June 2022 and said that that on its inspection it found the sound transference to be due to “everyday noise levels” and it did not find any structural issues. It gave an explanation about the buildings age, and that it was not “retrospectively” subject to regulations related to sound proofing. The landlord stated that it planned to conduct further sound testing to see if anything could be done to improve the matter, and offered £50 for the delay in the “proposal to undertake sound testing”.
The resident contacted this Service on 16 March 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint and said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the matter, and the time taken to resolve it.
The landlord completed sound testing and then did sound proofing works, in the property above when it was empty, in March 2023. The landlord completed further sound testing in October 2023. The report from the testing stated there was a “slight” improvement in sound transference after the works.

Assessment and findings

Noise disturbance, and the associated repairs

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. The HHSRS cites that excessive noise, as a result of inadequate insulation, is a potential hazard.
The resident was evidently unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the noise disturbance, and the associated sound insulation repairs, it completed in March 2023. The resident also expressed a concern that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs (and the associated decant) not related to noise disturbance, a pest infestation, and overcrowding. However, we are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of matters it has not had the opportunity to respond to as a complaint. Considering this, our investigation has focused on the events up until the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in June 2022.
The resident expressed a concern that the noise disturbance he was experiencing from the property above was impacting on his mental and physical wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of our remit.
The resident also expressed a concern, in an email to the landlord in June 2022, that he had lost over £2,000 in earnings. He explained this was due to having to take days off work, as a result of a loss of sleep due to the noise disturbance. Again, we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, a decision on the landlord’s liability for loss of earnings would ultimately need a binding decision by a court. As such it is not within the remit of our investigation to make a determination on whether the landlord was liable for loss of earnings. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advise if he wants to pursue this matter further.
It is noted the resident tried to raise a complaint in February 2023, but the landlord refused to progress the complaint as he had already exhausted its complaint procedure. Considering the above, and the landlord completed further works the resident was evidently unhappy about its handling of, a recommendation is made below.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 2 February 2022 set out what it had done to mitigate the issue of noise disturbance up to that point. This was appropriate in the circumstances. That it had installed “thick underlay and carpet” was appropriate, and evidence it took the resident’s concerns about noise disturbance seriously. That it agreed to conduct a further inspection to identify any further works is evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously, and was thorough and supportive in its approach.
The evidence shows it completed an inspection at the property on 8 March 2022. However, the landlord only issued the outcome of the inspection on 4 May 2022, a day after the resident requested to escalate the complaint. In his stage 2 complaint, the resident stated he was unhappy because he was told follow on works would be booked. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated it had inspected and found no defects that needing rectifying. Given the lack of available evidence it is not possible to determine what the resident was told at the time of the inspection. Given what the resident reported at stage 2, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s communication on the issue caused the resident confusion.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of, June 2022, set out its findings of the inspection in March 2022 which detailed the outcome in line with the letter sent in May 2022. It is noted that it took the landlord almost two months from the completion of the inspection to update the resident on the findings. As such, the resident was inconvenienced by needing to take his complaint to stage 2 in order to find out the outcome of the inspection.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response gave a detailed explanation of its position, and findings, in relation to the noise disturbance. It outlined its understanding of building regulations in terms of sound proofing and how it related to the property. This is evidence that it sought to be thorough in its response and address the resident’s concerns in detail. That it set out its position in relation to the inspection of 8 March 2022 went some way to putting right its earlier shortcoming.
The stage 2 response also stated it would do further testing, in line with the HHSRS. It cited that noise disturbance is subjective, and while not accepting any failings in its handling of the matter, it understood the impact the situation was having on the resident. This is evidence that the landlord acted proportionately and considered the individual circumstances of the resident, and the distress the noise disturbance was evidently causing him. That it sought to manage his expectations that it would not necessarily complete all recommendations following the testing was also appropriate. It explained that it would only complete works that were a reasonable use of its resources. This is evidence the landlord acted with transparency, and sought to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord completed works to try and address the issue, in 2021, when the property was void. It went beyond its usual void works remit and installed flooring. That it agreed to do a further inspection as part of its stage 1 complaint response was appropriate. However, the evidence showed it failed to provide feedback, or formally outline its position to the resident after the inspection in a reasonable period of time. This caused an inconvenience and the resident was cost time and trouble by needing to take his complaint further in order to get answers.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was thorough and agreed to inspect to see if further works could be done to improve the issue. It went some way to putting right the earlier shortcoming by outlining its position, following the inspection. It offered £50 for the delay in progressing with sound testing, which was appropriate. However, it failed to acknowledge the lack follow up in a reasonable time, and the confusion caused by it, after the inspection in March 2022. As such, we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance, and the associated repairs.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failing identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused by its lack of follow up after the inspection in March 2022.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord opens a complaint investigation to consider its handling of matters after the resident exhausted its complaints procedure in June 2022. In particular its handling of the sound insulation works, and his request for a decant.
It is also recommended that the landlord opens a complaint investigation into its handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Repairs not related to the noise disturbance, and the associated decant.
2. A pest infestation.
3. Overcrowding.