Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202311872)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311872

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

28 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for a neighbouring property to be soundproofed.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which started in April 2014. The property is a one bedroom flat.
  2. The resident has a disability and experiences significant cognitive difficulties following a brain injury. This includes motor speed, speed of information processing, memory, attention, emotional and behavioural difficulties.
  3. The resident’s mother had been acting as a representative for the resident throughout the complaint, therefore, for the purpose of readability, both the resident and his mother will be jointly referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout this investigation report.
  4. Following a formal complaint made by the resident in March 2022 regarding noise nuisance and a lack of sound insulation in the resident’s property, the landlord carried out noise reduction works. This included the installation of a acoustic ceiling system. The works were completed and the resident was able to move back in the property by March 2023.
  5. While the complaint was ongoing, the resident made a request to the landlord on 3 August 2022 to install acoustic underlay in the property above while it was void. This was because the resident did not feel the sound proofing works already conducted would be enough to limit the level of noise transmission from the property above into his flat. The evidence shows the landlord referred the request to its relevant internal team.
  6. The resident made a formal complaint on 4 July 2023. The resident stated that they felt the flat above would require more than just underlay and carpet in order to dampen the noise. The resident once again requested for a layer of soundproofing to be added to the flat above.
  7. The landlord reviewed the resident’s request and made an internal note stating that there were no plans to add additional sound proofing, however, an addendum would be added to the incoming tenancy to state that underlay and carpet must be laid. The landlord also noted that it would subsidise the cost of acoustic underlay.
  8. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 19 July 2023. It explained that it was not in a position to install additional sound proofing as to the best of its knowledge the building was compliant with regulations. However, the landlord acknowledged that it needed to take additional steps to address the noise levels which could impact the resident. The landlord explained that it would include a term in the incoming tenant’s tenancy stating that it was a requirement to lay quality underlay and carpet. The landlord noted that if the noise levels were still impacting the resident after this, then it would support the resident in making a management move application. 
  9. The resident escalated the complaint on 20 July 2023 as they felt a solution had not been found and they remained in the same position as when the initial complaint was made in February 2022 regarding noise levels.
  10. In August 2023, the resident raised concerns about the quality of the underlay that was to be installed by their neighbour. Following communication with the neighbour, the landlord confirmed that the underlay was ‘acoustic and met the required specifications’.
  11. The landlord issued a stage 2 response to the resident on 23 August 2023. The landlord confirmed that the sound insulation system it installed in the resident’s property was the “highest performing acoustic ceiling system” that was available on the market and it was unable to install any further sound insulation. The landlord also stated that it was satisfied the underlay that was to be installed by the tenant in the flat above was an acoustic one, and while it had not been installed yet, it was due to be installed within the following two weeks.
  12. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 25 August 2023 as they felt the landlord had not purchased the correct quality acoustic underlay nor did they check it was installed correctly.
  13. The landlord worked with the tenant above the resident and carried out a visit to ensure the correct underlay and carpet would be laid. Following this, the landlord confirmed to the resident on 15 September 2023 that a carpet was due to be laid on 16 September 2023. On 20 September 2023, the landlord confirmed that all the carpets except one had been laid.
  14. The resident informed this Service on 6 October 2023 that they remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident felt that there had been no difference to noise transference and if landlord had added a layer of soundproofing to the flat above when it was void, it may have been a more permanent resolution.
  15. The correspondence between the landlord and the resident since the final response indicates that the issues with noise transference remain ongoing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the property above theirs to be sound proofed.

  1. The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
  2. The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ to how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so. Ultimately, it is for the courts to determine whether any adjustments (requested or provided) are reasonable. However, we can investigate whether a landlord has properly considered whether the adjustments are practicable and if they would overcome the disadvantages experienced by disabled people. We may find service failure or maladministration if a landlord cannot demonstrate it properly considered whether adjustments were reasonable or should be made.
  3. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states that the landlord is required to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to the home in order to improve the accessibility of the home and allow the resident to continue living independently. While there is no prescribed list of reasonable adjustments, the adjustment would depend on the individual’s needs. 

 

  1. Following the resident’s initial request in August 2022 for the landlord to install acoustic underlay in the property above theirs while it was void, the landlord referred the request to its relevant staff members such as the neighbourhood managers and surveying works manager. However, there is no evidence to show the resident was kept informed about the outcome of their request until they made a formal complaint about the matter in July 2023.
  2. While this Service acknowledges that the landlord was arranging and carrying out sound proofing works to the resident’s property during this period, it would have still been reasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident’s request for additional measures to be taken. Whether it was feasible or not, the landlord should have communicated this to the resident without them having to chase the landlord for the information, which would have taken time and effort for the resident to do. 
  3. This failure to communicate and update the resident was unreasonable given the associated concerns the resident had around noise transfer and their specific requirements, as would be known to the landlord, due to the soundproofing works already undertaken in the resident’s property.
  4. In managing the resident’s complaint made on 4 July 2023, the landlord’s internal communications show it did consider more than one option to try and resolve the resident’s complaint. Records show the landlord considered whether it could specify and select a tenant for the property who was not likely to generate a large amount of household noise within the property. However, as the property had not been listed as a ‘sensitive’ let, the property had to be let in accordance with the normal housing allocations process and the next available and applicable candidate would have been offered the property.
  5. While the landlord stated it could not install the underlay and sound proofing itself, it would add a term to the tenancy for the property to ensure an acoustic underlay and carpets would be installed. The landlord also stated it would subsidise the cost of the works.
  6. The evidence shows the landlord put in place provisions that required the new tenant to fit carpets and acoustic underlay and the landlord would subsidise this work. It is reasonable to assume that the landlord had to balance a number of competing interests such as the needs and requests of the resident, against other factors such as maintaining its stock to be available for rent and budgets. Furthermore, the landlord stated that the building ‘met regulations’ therefore, there was no legal obligation upon it to undertake further soundproofing works.
  7. In addition, the landlord also suggested a management move as an option if the day to day noise was still an issue following the sound proofing works in his property and the steps it planned to take with the neighbours property. This shows that the landlord had a loose contingency plan in the event its measures did not meet the residents needs, by providing the resident with an option to move from his current home to an alternative property.
  8. Once the new tenant had moved in to the property, the landlord’s files show that it maintained communication with the tenant to ensure the correct underlay was being installed, and it clarified its desired timescales for underlay to be installed. This shows the landlord was being proactive in monitoring the works to ensure it was being completed to the expected standard. The landlord also carried out a visit to the tenant’s property and kept the resident updated about potential noise disturbance whilst the flooring was being installed and kept up to date on the expected completion dates.
  9. The resident disputed that the landlord carried out appropriate checks to ensure the underlay and carpet installed in their neighbour’s property was of good quality. While the landlord did carry out a visit and correspond with the neighbour, it is unclear what it relied on to determine whether the underlay and carpet were of the standard it had stipulated. Given that the landlord had told the resident it would ensure a good quality carpet and acoustic underlay was installed, the landlord could have considered sharing the evidence it had relied upon to ensure the materials were suitable in order to provide reassurance to the resident. The failure to share the information it relied upon to justify its assessment meant the resident was not satisfied that appropriate measures had been taken to minimise the level of noise transference.
  10. It was reasonable for the landlord to monitor the instalment of carpets and underlay and its subsidy provided assurance that affordability of the new tent to install materials of the required standard was not a factor. However, the landlord should have been more transparent with the resident about the evidence it relied upon to determine that the underlay and carpet installed were of a high quality as requested. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to provide confidence in its approach to the resident.
  11. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the difficulties and concerns experienced by the resident, overall the landlord demonstrated it had given due regard its responsibilities under the Equality Act. This is by firstly, the actions to soundproof the resident’s property, and then, whilst not applying the same extent of measures, it undertook reasonable steps to mitigate noise transference from the tenants property by ensuring acoustic underlay and carpets were fitted. Furthermore, that the measures that applied to the neighbouring property were lasting, due to a condition in in the incoming lease.
  12. It is reasonable to conclude that the steps the landlord took whilst the neighbouring property was void, has followed its adaptations policy in that it made reasonable adjustments in the circumstances, that it considered appropriate to reduce noise transfer between the properties and to allow the resident to continue living independently at his flat, after the new tenant had moved into the property above him.
  13. However, there was a significant delay initially in the landlord addressing the resident’s request. The evidence shows the resident was left without a response to their initial query for approximately 11 months, and this was a contributing factor in the resident’s making of the complaint.
  14. While the resident’s request was not for an adaptation to his own property, it was as part of his need for a solution to the overall problem affecting his disability, and therefore the landlord should have assessed and responded to the request within a reasonable time frame.
  15. This delay in assessing and responding to the resident’s query was unreasonable and fell short of expected service standards. It was not fair on the resident to have had to chase the landlord for a response and the length of time taken to respond is likely to have distressed the resident who had already expressed their dissatisfaction with the matter. The significant delay in responding to the resident was a failure by the landlord. 
  16. The landlord did not address the delay in its complaint responses. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge when things have gone wrong, such as incidences of ‘unreasonable delay’ and it will take ‘action’ where a delay has occurred. The landlord should have acknowledged the delay and offered  remedy in recognition of the delay and the impact this would have had on the resident, who was awaiting a permanent resolution. The landlord’s lack of acknowledgement and appropriate offer of remedy for the delay amounts to a service failure.
  17. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 in recognition of the identified failures.
  18. The resident has continued to report the impact of the noise transference following all of the work undertaken to date by the landlord. As such, it is recommended the landlord should work with the resident and review whether any subsequent works can be reasonably undertaken, and if not, it should explore any other reasonable alternative options with the resident to provide a permanent solution such as a move to another more suitable property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for sound proofing in the property above theirs.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £200 in recognition of the failures identified in this report.
    3. The landlord is ordered to share the evidence it relied upon to determine that the carpet and underlay were installed in the property above, and why it considered it was of the required standard. The evidence should also be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended for the landlord to work with the resident and establish if there are reasonable adjustments that can be made, such as additional soundproofing that meets the resident’s needs. If there is no realistic improvement possible the landlord should discuss alternative solutions such as a management transfer with the resident and agree an action plan.