Platform Housing Group Limited (202125707)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125707

Platform Housing Group Limited

13 June 2023

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:
1. The resident’s concerns about the layout of the neighbouring property.
2. The resident’s request for sound proofing.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a lease with the landlord, who is a housing association, under the shared ownership scheme. The resident signed the leasehold agreement on 28 July 2017. The property is a mid-terrace three bedroom house in a block of three properties.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The leasehold agreement states that the leaseholder covenants with the landlord include:
1. “Clause 3.9.2 not to make any alteration or addition of a non-structural nature to the interior of the Premises without the previous written consent of the landlord.”
2. Appendix 3 1. “although initially the property is not owned outright, the leaseholder does have the normal responsibilities of a full owner. This means, for example, that the leaseholder will be obliged to pay 100% of the outgoings relating to the property and to keep the property in good and substantial repair and condition.”
The landlord’s customer feedback procedure defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction about an action or lack of action resulting in service failure.”
The landlord has a three–step process. The ‘informal quick resolution stage’ aims to resolve complaints within two working days. If this is not possible a formal complaint will be initiated, known as the ‘investigation’, bypassing this stage. The landlord aims to acknowledge formal complaints within three working days from receipt and to respond within 10 working days. The third stage is a ‘final review’ which should be acknowledged within three working days from receipt. The acknowledgement should confirm how the complaint is to be progressed and provide timescales. If the landlord accepts the complaint for investigation the investigating officer will make personal contact to discuss the complaint. It will aim to issue its response within 20 working days of receipt of the escalation request.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it may “set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure.”
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code (the Code) sets out the following:
1. Section 1.4 – Landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. “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.”
2. Section 4.3 – Landlords should manage residents’ expectations from the outset, being clear where a desired outcome is unreasonable or unrealistic.
3. Section 5 – Landlords should have a two stage complaint procedure. The first formal stage, ‘stage one’ and the second formal ‘stage two’.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord on 26 January 2022 to raise concerns that the layout of his immediate neighbour’s property may be contributing towards noise issues he was experiencing with his neighbour.
The landlord’s records show that on 27 January 2022, the resident emailed about the layout of his own property. He said that he noticed that his property had been built differently to others on the estate. The resident said that he hadn’t noticed the issue before but began to do so owing to issues with noise transference. Within this email, the resident asked to be provided with the plans for the build.
On 1 February 2022, the landlord provided the resident with the plans and advised that his property was built to specification.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 February 2022 to explain that the issue was with his neighbour’s property, and that the local authority had informed him that there was a “mistake” on the build. The resident advised that he was looking for some resolution and hoped some sort of soundproofing partition wall could be installed.
The landlord replied on the same day and asked if the resident could forward the information he had received from the local authority. The landlord added that in the interim it wished to advise the resident that as he owned the property, he was in a position to consider the option of any enhancements that might “improve the soundproofing qualities” of the property.
Subsequent emails sent between the landlord and resident during February 2022 confirmed that:
1. The neighbouring property had been built to the specification as agreed and signed off at the planning stage. However, the local authority had referred to outdated plans at the point of sign off.
2. The contractor did not notice the error and built the property in line with the outdated plans.
3. The resident believed that the layout of the property contributed to the noise issues because they had been built ‘room to room’ on the party wall. Had the properties been built to the most recent specification there would have been a staircase and hallway separating the properties on the dividing wall.
The resident emailed the landlord on three occasions during February. He sought confirmation that his concerns in relation to the build and his resulting request for sound proofing had been responded to as a formal complaint. In his email of 2 February 2022, the resident reported that the noise issue was affecting his sleep which was impacting on his work and health. He asked the landlord to confirm if the email it sent him earlier that day was its final response on the matter. He emailed again on 11 February 2022 to ask the landlord if it had provided its last response on the question of sound proofing. He emailed a third time on 24 February to ask if the landlord had made a final decision regarding his complaint about the sound proofing issue.
In a phone call to this Service on 22 February 2022, the resident described being able to hear his neighbour’s television, children and footsteps. He said the cost of sound proofing his home was expensive. He was waiting for his landlord to contact him.
The landlord’s internal records dated 25 February 2022 state that it intended to contact the developer to query the discrepancy with the build. It also planned to check whether the insulation was adequate, on the basis that poor insulation could cause an issue regardless of the location of the stairs.
On 4 March 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to provide an update on its enquiry with the contractor. It said that “a formal approach had been made to the construction firm that built the properties to request an explanation.” The resident replied to ask if the complaint was now at stage two. He added that the ongoing noise issues were impacting on his health and that he would have to move if it continued. He believed this would not be an issue if the neighbour’s bedrooms did not adjoin his.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 March 2022 because he had not received a formal complaint response from the landlord. We wrote to the landlord and asked it to contact the resident no later than 23 March 2022. The landlord’s internal communications, dated 9 March, state it had no record of the previous complaint on the issue but would now raise a formal complaint.
A stage one complaint acknowledgement letter was issued on 10 March 2022, and a complaint response was provided on 24 March 2022. Within this, the landlord confirmed that:
1. The drawings referenced in the planning permission supplied by the local authority were not the most up to date drawings submitted in 2015. The local authority had advised that it would not usually be concerned with the internal layout of the properties. It did not consider that further action was required in respect of the discrepancy and confirmed it had no concern with the drawings showing the current layout.
2. The property had been built within building regulations, and signed off by the National Housing Building Council (NHBC). It therefore did not consider there to have been a failure by its development team. The issue did not concern the structural integrity of the property. The “error in the build of the internal layout lies with the local authority referencing the incorrect drawings, and the developer in failing to challenge this.”
3. Its development team were challenging the matter with the developer on the resident’s behalf. It had also asked to be provided with evidence that sufficient insulation had been used in the dividing wall between the resident’s property and his neighbour’s. It had also asked for an explanation as to why the property was not built to the most up to date drawings.
4. While it understood the impact on the resident, it had not found any failing on its behalf. As such, it was unable to uphold the complaint.
5. It would continue to chase the developer and if it refused liability for the discrepancy it would endeavour to find a solution to the noise issues that the resident was experiencing.
6. It was investigating sound proofing solutions as it “would not want to leave any customer in a position that they do not feel comfortable in their own home.”
7. The resident could escalate his complaint for a review by a senior manager if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 March 2022 to request that the complaint be escalated to stage two. He said that the noise issues were affecting his sleep which had a detrimental impact his work and personal life. He believed that the design of the neighbouring property was at fault and was seeking an urgent response.
On 12 April 2022 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the stage two complaint received on 7 April. In it, the landlord noted that the resident was seeking sound proofing to be installed on the party wall. It confirmed it was exploring sound proofing but was not in a position to give details of any action. It said that although the stage one complaint had not been upheld, it was still considering solutions to the noise issues.
The investigating officer for the stage two complaint attempted to phone the resident on 22 April 2022 in order to fully understand the complaint and desired outcome. A follow up email was sent that same day to provide an update. The landlord considered a key issue to be whether the sound insulation of the party wall between the two properties had been installed correctly. It advised that it could establish this by appointing a specialist consultant to carry out tests in both properties. Provided the resident was in agreement, it would arrange a date for the tests to be carried out.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 22 April 2022, which included the following:
1. The complaint centred on two issues – that the layout of the neighbouring property was contrary to drawings that had been approved under planning permission and the layout was creating excessive noise disturbance.
2. To put things right, the resident wished to have sound proofing installed. He believed that this would help to reduce the noise; and that he should not have to fund this himself.
3. It acknowledged that the configuration of his neighbour’s property was shown differently on the planning approval. However, the drawings given to the resident by the marketing team on 3 February 2017 showed the layout of the properties as they were now. Therefore, the resident was aware that the neighbour’s living room and bedrooms would be directly adjacent to his.
4. Building control certificates showed that the properties were constructed to all relevant standards. To reassure both him and the neighbour that the party wall had been constructed properly, it would arrange for a consultant to carry out an acoustic survey. It would contact the resident to arrange this.
5. If the survey found that the sound insulation was not compliant with building regulation standards, it would carry out the necessary works to rectify this.
6. The response had been reviewed by a customer as per the complaints policy for final review complaints.
7. This was its final response and the resident could refer the matter to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
In an email to this Service on 11 May 2022, the resident advised he was not satisfied with the landlord’s stage two response. He said that at the point he purchased the property he was not aware that the difference in property design would cause noise issues.
Between 23 May and 24 June 2022 there were various communications regarding ongoing noise nuisance between the two properties. These confirmed that:
1. The resident told the landlord that the children next door were banging on the walls at “all hours” (on one occasion at 3.45am) and he was not able to rest.
2. The local authority confirmed that its environmental health team had installed noise monitoring equipment on two occasions but had not collected evidence of excessive noise. Given the resident’s concerns regarding the layout of the neighbouring property, the local authority asked the landlord to consider sound proofing on 8 June.
3. The resident attempted to make use of the noise app but records show he contacted the landlord on 9 June 2022 to report that it was not working.
4. The police contacted the landlord to request that it consider sound proofing.
Acoustic testing was carried out on 10 June 2022, and the report was compiled by the consultant on 23 June. The report concluded that the tested separating wall met relevant requirements.
On 4 July 2022, the landlord shared the outcome of the testing with the resident. It stated that as the dwelling met all the required standards, it would not carry out sound proofing works to the property. It reminded the resident that he was able to carry out his own works as long as he obtained permission to do so.

Assessment and findings

Resident’s concerns about the layout of the neighbouring property

The terms of the lease agreement do not require the landlord to carry out sound proofing works in the event of excessive noise. However, the landlord may use its discretion to install sound proofing if it considers it reasonable in the circumstances.
In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord appropriately advised that it was not responsible for the layout of the neighbouring property. It explained that the local authority had approved the plans, including the internal layout, and the developer had not noticed that the plans were not up to date. However, the landlord acknowledged the concerns that were raised by the resident and agreed to contact the developer to seek confirmation that sufficient insulation had been used in the separating wall. This was an appropriate response in the circumstances, demonstrating a proactive approach to investigating and resolving the issue.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord also confirmed that the property had been built in accordance with relevant building regulations. In its stage one complaint response it confirmed that the property met the required standards and had been signed off by the NHBC. In its stage two complaint response it once again confirmed that building control certificates showed that the party walls between the two properties had been constructed to relevant standards. It was reasonable that the landlord considered these relevant standards and explained how they had been met. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the layout of the neighbouring property.
If the resident wishes to pursue a complaint against the local authority’s handling of the planning application, he should contact the local authority directly or contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, which has jurisdiction over complaints relating to local authority functions including planning decisions. The resident may also wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue a complaint or claim against the property developer.

Request for sound proofing

In response to the resident’s ongoing complaint about excessive noise disturbance the landlord arranged for an acoustic test to be carried out on 10 June 2022. There was no obligation on the landlord to commission such a test. However, that it did demonstrates that it was committed to seeing how it could assist the resident in finding a solution to the problems reported.
The conclusion of the test was that construction of the separating wall met the requirements for airborne sound insulation. The test did not identify any faults with the building. The resident has told this Service that he has doubts about whether the sound test was truly independent. This aspect of the complaint has not been brought to the landlord’s attention, so it has not had the opportunity to investigate through its internal complaints procedure. However, this investigation has not seen any evidence to suggest the test was not carried out appropriately by a suitably qualified professional. If the resident has further concerns on this point, he should raise them directly with the landlord.
The evidence shows that the landlord took a number of factors into account when responding to the resident’s request for sound proofing. Specifically, that the party wall was constructed to the required building standards and met the requirements for airborne sound insulation. It also had regard to the cost of installing sound proofing which was expensive. The action was also reasonable given that the terms of the lease state that the resident has “normal responsibilities of a full owner.” This demonstrated that its decision making was proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances. As such, while the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision, the evidence shows that it had exercised its discretion fairly by considering the resident’s concerns when making its decision.
The landlord took appropriate steps to investigate whether there were any issues rising from the construction of the property which could be causing excessive noise. Based on its findings, the landlord’s decision not to install sound proofing was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord advised the resident that he could carry out the works himself as long as he obtains prior permission from to do so. This advice was in line with the terms of the lease agreement and was therefore appropriate.
While the landlord’s decision to not install sound proofing was reasonable, the wording in some of the landlord’s responses raised the resident’s expectations in anticipation of a different outcome:
1. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord confirmed it would be investigating sound proofing options as it did not want “to leave any customer in a position that they do not feel comfortable in their own home.”
2. When acknowledging the stage two escalation request the landlord confirmed it was exploring sound proofing but was not in a position to give details of any action.
3. At no stage did the landlord say that the installation of sound proofing would depend on further tests on the party wall.
The landlord’s internal records, dated 6 and 12 April 2022, show that the landlord’s intention was to look into sound proofing. However, this investigation has not seen any evidence that this was actioned.
Section 4.3 of the Code highlights the importance of the complaints process in managing residents’ expectations. The landlord’s thinking on the subject of sound proofing changed during the stage two complaint response stage when it decided to carry out acoustic survey as a means of testing whether the party wall had been constructed properly. While this was a reasonable course of action, the landlord failed to make it clear that the outcome of this test would determine its decision regarding sound proofing.
It was only when the landlord wrote to the resident to outline the result of the test that it said it would not consider sound proofing because it was satisfied the wall had been constructed to all required standards. This was a failing, not only because it raised the resident’s expectations but also because it demonstrates a lack of clear decision making on the landlord’s part. For these reasons, a determination of service failure has been made in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for sound proofing.

Complaint Handling

The resident emailed the landlord on 2,11, 24 February 2022 and 4 March to establish whether his complaint in relation to sound proofing had been addressed through the landlord’s formal complaint process. He further sought to establish if the landlord had provided its final response on the matter. The landlord failed to respond to his query on each occasion. The resident subsequently contacted this Service on 22 February 2022. We asked the landlord to consider the matter through its formal complaints procedure. The landlord’s internal records, dated 9 March 2022, state that it had no record of a complaint having been made about the same issue previously. It agreed to open a formal complaint following contact from this Service.
It is concerning that the landlord failed to raise a formal complaint in the circumstances as its customer feedback procedure defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction about an action or lack of action resulting in service failure.” The resident made it clear that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted to make a formal complaint. The resident should not have found it necessary to make repeated requests for an answer on a very specific question, and to contact this Service to have his concerns logged as a formal complaint.
That the landlord failed to treat the matter as a complaint sooner was inappropriate and did not comply with the procedure set out by the landlord. It also did not comply with the Code which says “a complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request.” Furthermore, it delayed its consideration of the complaint by two months. The failure caused frustration, inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident in trying to resolve his complaint. An order has been made to the landlord in relation to staff training to ensure that all complaints are logged and responded to in accordance with the complaints procedure.
The landlord acted appropriately in issuing the stage one complaint (referred to by the landlord as the ‘investigation’) response in line with the timescale communicated to the resident and the response time set out in the customer feedback process. The acknowledgement of the complaint escalation request set out that the complaint would be escalated to the next stage which was in line with its customer feedback process. However, it failed to notify the resident when the full response would be issued so did not give timescales for the investigation as set out in its customer feedback process. It therefore failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations which would have created uncertainty around timescales.
In accordance with its customer feedback process, the officer investigating the stage two complaint made contact with the resident to ensure he fully understood the complaint and desired outcomes. The subsequent response was issued within the timescales set out in the policy.
While the landlord did at times handle the complaint in line with its complaints procedure, and it is acknowledged that it also showed a genuine desire to resolve the issues raised by the resident, overall there was maladministration in its handling of the complaint. This is because the resident was caused additional time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to acknowledge and respond to the complaint when initially raised.
Section 5 of the Code sets out the complaints process as being two formal stages. The inclusion of an additional ‘informal quick resolution’ stage could cause unnecessary confusion for residents. It could result in an overly lengthy complaints process which could be detrimental to residents. It may also cause a lack of focus amongst staff, in terms of recognising when a formal complaint should be opened. A recommendation has not been made in relation to this matter because this Service is aware that the landlord has taken action since the time of this complaint to address these issues.
It would be appropriate, however, for the landlord to review the names of each of its formal stages, currently the ‘investigation’ followed by ‘final review’. While there was no detriment to the resident in this case, referring to them as such could cause confusion for residents. A recommendation has been made accordingly.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to resident’s concerns about the layout of the neighbouring property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to resident’s request for sound proofing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord demonstrated a proactive and fair approach in its investigation of this issue. It considered whether the property had been built in line with relevant standards, and provided clear explanations to the resident. It also clearly explained the roles of the local authority and developer in the matter; that the local authority was responsible for approving the plans and the developer did not notice the discrepancy during the build.
There is no obligation for the landlord to install sound proofing in the event of excessive noise. It exercised its discretion around whether to do so appropriately in the circumstances. However, its communication was inappropriate because it failed to adequately manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s clear attempts to make a formal complaint about his dissatisfaction and only did so after this Service intervened.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should pay the resident:
1. £150 to reflect the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
2. £50 to reflect the landlord’s failings in managing the resident’s expectations in relation to his request for sound proofing.
Within six weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should carry out staff training to ensure that all expressions of dissatisfaction are handled in line with its customer complaints procedure. There should be a particular emphasis on how to recognise a service request versus an expression of dissatisfaction. The landlord should confirm the date and content of the training to the Ombudsman, also within six weeks.

Recommendation

During the landlord’s next annual self-assessment against the Code, due in September 2023, it should consider changing the names of the stages in its complaint policy to Stage 1 and Stage 2.