Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202300068)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300068

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

11 March 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:
1. Response to reports of recurring leaks from the flat above.
2. Response to the noise from the flat above which was said to be due to the lack of sound proofing under the laminate flooring.
This report has also taken into consideration the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the local authority. She has lived in the two-bedroom first floor flat since July 1992.
The landlord has confirmed no vulnerabilities are listed for the resident. However, throughout her correspondence, the resident continued to inform the landlord of several health conditions which have been supported by GP letters.

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident has referred to several health conditions which are being affected by the noise coming from the flat above (Flat A). While we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.
In the resident’s contact with this Service, she has referred to an escalation in the behaviour from the residents in flat A. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states: “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints process”. Due to this, the resident is encouraged to continue reporting these incidents to the landlord and police to enable the appropriate action to be taken. This report will not make any further comment regarding the more recent issues.

Summary of events

As part of the investigation, this Service asked the landlord to provide information regarding the resident’s reports of leaks from flat A, and reports of the noise issues believed to be due to the lack of sound proofing under their laminate flooring. According to the information provided, the landlord first received contact from the resident on 27 July 2021. While there is no evidence of the call, from subsequent contact it would appear this was in connection with noise coming from flat A.
On 28 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update on the issue reported. The landlord confirmed it had spoken to flat A who said they would keep works to the hours of 9am to 5pm and this should be completed by the end of the week. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord asked flat A what work was being done in their flat.
The resident reported the first leak from flat A on 28 September 2021. The repair records confirm a plumber visited flat A and diagnosed a leaking bathtub. The records confirm the leak was repaired by the plumber. It was noted that the surrounding flats needed to be inspected for damage because of the leak.
On 29 September 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s home to make safe the electrics after the leak.
The landlord inspected the resident’s home on 14 October 2021. Repairs were needed to the bathroom ceiling, along with decoration and the fitting of the light. It was noted the resident asked for an inspection to be done on flat A to check for suspected unauthorised work in the bathroom which she believed was the cause of the leak. She also asked the landlord to inspect the laminate flooring as this was causing noise transfer.
On 14 October 2021, a senior surveyor inspected flat A. It was confirmed the leak had been caused by a perished pipe that had been replaced. The repair notes stated the bathroom was “immaculate.”
On 21 October 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the dates for her repairs. It confirmed the outcome of the surveyor’s inspection and told the resident it had sent the flooring issue to the surveying team to investigate further. The resident thanked the landlord for confirming the inspection had taken place and asked for an update on the flooring when available.
The resident confirmed via email on 28 October 2021 that all her repairs were completed. She asked the landlord which surveyor would be inspecting the flooring in flat A which had been fitted as part of the unauthorised work. The landlord informed the resident on 1 November 2021 that the flooring and noise issue had been transferred to another team to investigate.
On 3 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. She said the flooring had been installed during unauthorised work in July 2021, which she reported to the landlord at the time. She said the noise was unbearable and she could hear everything. She said this was not allowed under the tenancy agreement and asked the landlord to ask flat A to install carpet with underlay throughout as soon as possible. She then alleged flat A’s unauthorised work had resulted in the leak on 28 September 2021 which had damaged several surrounding properties. The resident asked the landlord to write to flat A to remind them they needed permission before conducting any work, which should then be inspected by a surveyor.
On 4 November 2021, the landlord told the resident the case was being reviewed by management. The landlord’s records indicate it had spoken to flat A and was also visiting the property. It was to knock at the resident’s property to see if it could assess the noise from the flooring.
A further email was sent by the resident on 5 November 2021 in which she said there had been 2 breaches of tenancy. One for the unauthorised work which led to the leak, and one for the installation of laminate flooring without appropriate soundproofing. The resident repeated her request for the landlord to contact flat A regarding these issues and for the flooring to be removed. The landlord’s internal notes confirm it had tried to call the resident but there was no answer. The landlord visited flat A who said the flooring was in the property when they moved in. The landlord noted flat A had laid heavy rugs due to the complaints from the resident.
The landlord’s internal records confirm the flooring had been left by the previous resident. The landlord discussed internally if it would install carpet instead of the laminate flooring but decided it would not do so.
On 9 November 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had visited flat A and had carried out an investigation regarding the flooring. It told the resident there was evidence on the system to confirm the flooring was left by the previous occupant. It told the resident the floor was heavily rugged throughout to try and reduce the noise. It asked the resident if it could visit her to arrange a noise test and asked for availability.
The resident replied to the landlord on 15 November 2021. She said she was concerned the issue was being dealt with as noise nuisance. She said it was the flooring that was the problem. She confirmed the previous occupant had installed flooring which she had reported, but the current occupant replaced it as part of the unauthorised work in July 2021.
The landlord’s internal records confirmed its system suggested the flooring was laid by the previous tenant. It confirmed the flooring had been inspected and it was found to be of a good standard. It confirmed it had updated the resident following the inspection and had offered to install noise monitoring equipment to assess the level of noise transfer. It noted it had not received a response from the resident regarding this offer.
On 18 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to advise she had been forced to contact her GP as the noise was severely impacting her sleep. She said she had been prescribed sleeping tablets, and now dreaded going home. She again asked the landlord to inspect the flooring and the landlord agreed to treat it as a priority. The landlord scheduled a joint visit to both properties to assess the noise levels.
The landlord noted that the offer of the joint visit, sound tests and noise monitoring equipment were refused by the resident. She said the tests would not confirm if the flooring had been laid with sufficient sound proofing. The inspection of flat A was still to take place on 23 November 2021, and the resident asked for a report of the findings from the inspection.
On 30 November 2021, the resident asked if the inspection had been completed and requested a copy of the report. She said there had been banging and drilling in flat A on 26 November 2021 which sounded like further work was being done. She asked if a check was to be made on the plumbing and electrical work. This request was repeated on 7 December 2021. She also told the landlord flat A had said they were intending to refurbish the kitchen and she was concerned about this.
The resident was still chasing an update on 14 December 2021. She summarised the issue with the flooring and the bathroom which led to the leak and confirmed the landlord had agreed to inspect the flooring on 23 November 2021. She asked that if it were found the flooring was not sound proofed, flat A be asked to fit carpet with rubber underlay.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 14 December 2021. It recommended sound testing and assured her flat A would not know it was being done. It told her a surveyor would be present to listen to the noise transference. The resident refused the offer and said she would escalate the issue further. Noise monitoring equipment was also offered but refused.
The landlord sought advice as to what it should do to progress the issue with the flooring. It said the resident had refused the offer of a joint visit, noise monitoring equipment and sound test. She had asked for an inspection, but the landlord had said it needed evidence of the noise before any further progress could be made. The landlord confirmed it needed to determine if the level of noise was a result of everyday living or if it was noise nuisance.
On 22 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to inform it of a second leak from flat A. It had been reported by her neighbour (flat B) who had also been affected. She said a plumber had attended her property on the evening but could not find a leak. She told the plumber to visit flat A and said he told her the leak was from flat A.
On 23 December 2021, the landlord called the resident. No further information has been provided to confirm the discussion that took place. The resident emailed the landlord to summarise the situation. She confirmed she was still unaware if the inspection took place on 23 November 2021. She asked why flat A had been allowed to complete his own repairs to the leak on 22 December 2021. The resident asked the landlord for an update on the actions taken.
The landlord’s internal records note a joint visit was to take place at flat A with a surveyor and a member of housing. The resident believed the private work in the bathroom had caused the 2 leaks, and she believed more work could have been done in the kitchen. The landlord confirmed it needed to visit flat A to determine if permission had been sought and if the works had caused the leaks. The landlord confirmed it had visited flat A on a few occasions to see if any work was ongoing. The last visit took place on 9 December 2021. The kitchen did not look any different to the visit on 4 November 2021. It confirmed no permission had been requested or approved for kitchen work.
The landlord confirmed it had spoken to flat A and a contractor about the most recent leak. The contractor confirmed the leak came from the kitchen in flat A but had bypassed the resident’s flat and had leaked into flat B. The cause of the leak was old, rusted pipes and a nut that had not been tightened correctly. The contractor confirmed it had fixed the problem.
The resident thanked the landlord for its response to the latest leak and asked if a manager from housing could attend flat A with the surveyor. The resident asked for the date of when the inspection would be done.
The resident states a further leak occurred on 24 December 2021 which was reported by flat B. The landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm its attendance, findings, or actions from this visit.
On 19 January 2022, the landlord’s records confirm a leak from flat A had been reported by another neighbour (flat C). The notes state urgent access was needed to the flats. It had checked flat A and the neighbouring property but there was no sign of a leak. It was confirmed access was needed to the resident’s flat as soon as a period of Covid isolation had ended.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 January 2022. She asked how the landlord would determine if the flooring had been fitted with suitable sound proofing. She said it was not a neighbour dispute, she was just worried by what it had done. She said the work flat A had done had resulted in 4 leaks and extreme noise disturbance. The resident said she was scared for the damage it may have caused to the structure of the building.
The landlord responded to the resident on 25 January 2022. It confirmed it had inspected the flat A and the neighbour and no signs of leaks had been found. It had checked the bathroom and kitchen of flat A; it had looked at pipework under the bath and behind panels and it was all dry with no sign of a leak. The landlord confirmed it would need to inspect her property as soon as possible to see if the leak was coming from her property. The landlord told the resident the flooring in flat A was not the same throughout the property and the bathroom floor was much newer. It confirmed it had escalated the flooring issue to a surveyor to see what more could be done.
The resident submitted a complaint on 25 January 2022. The complaint was in relation to the landlord’s alleged repeated failure to deal with the unauthorised work in flat A, and the impact the work had on neighbouring flats. The resident noted the following:
1. She suspected unauthorised work had been completed in the bathroom in July 2021. She was concerned about the potential damage to the structure of the building. The work was reported however she said it was unclear if any action had been taken, and she did not think the landlord had inspected the work. The resident asked why no significant action had been taken regarding the work, and why no enforcement had been taken against the breach of tenancy.
2. The leak on 28 September 2021 came from flat A. The resident believed the leak was caused by the unauthorised work completed. She said a plumber had told her the work in flat A was of poor quality and he recommended it was removed and reinstated by the landlord. The resident said she saw flat A’s own workers in the flat and assumed the landlord had allowed him to deal with the leak himself. She asked why the plumber’s recommendation was overridden and why flat A had been allowed to do their own repairs.
3. The resident said since the works had been completed, she had suffered from ongoing and persistent noise disturbance from flat A. She believed the flooring had been laid without sufficient sound proofing. She reported this and repeatedly asked for the flooring to be inspected. She said no physical inspection had ever been conducted. The resident asked why this had not been done.
4. On report of the second leak on 22 December 2021, she said the plumber spent less than 5 minutes in flat A before leaving, therefore it was apparent no action was taken. A plumber was sent to flat A on 23 December 2021 and spent most of the day there. The resident was told the source of the leak had been identified and dealt with.
5. The resident said that when the third leak was reported on 24 December 2021, flat A had refused access. She said the plumber told her flat A had told him the leak had started in her flat and the one next to them. The resident said the plumber who attended on 22 December 2021 arrived. She asked him if he inspected flat A on 22 and 24 December 2021 and he said he had not. She said both plumbers left without accessing flat A.
6. A plumber who attended the first leak also attended the fourth leak on 20 January 2022. This was the plumber who had commented on the poor work completed in flat A. The resident said he told her he believed flat A had “pleaded” with the landlord and convinced it not to remove the bathroom and to allow them to do their own repairs. The landlord did not gain access to flat A on this visit. The resident believed her neighbour brought his own workers to the flat on the evening of 20 January 2022 to repair the leak. A plumber attended on 21 January 2022 but could not gain access. The resident asked when the landlord would be completing a full and thorough inspection of the flat.
Further to her complaint, the resident emailed the landlord on 26 January 2022 to confirm she would allow access to her flat once out of isolation. She asked what had happened at flat A and wanted full details of the inspection of 25 January 2022.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 27 January 2022 and advised a response would be sent by 8 February 2022.
On 27 January 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It confirmed it would be visiting all properties affected by the leak. The resident asked for full details on the checks made in flat A and asked if the checks to be completed in the affected properties had been done in flat A. The landlord confirmed it would address the issues raised as part of the ongoing complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 February 2022 to advise more time was needed for the complaint investigation. It hoped to respond by 14 February 2022.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 11 February 2022. The response confirmed the following:
1. Disruptive work was reported on 27 July 2021. The landlord spoke to flat A to remind them of the permitted hours of work. Flat A told the landlord no further works would be taking place.
2. On receipt of the leak report in September 2021, the landlord attended and traced this to a bath overflow or waste pipe. This leak was repaired during the visit.
3. The landlord inspected flat A on 14 October 2021 and no defects were identified with the work completed. The landlord had no grounds to remove the bathroom.
4. The noise from the flooring was reported on 3 November 2021. Housing visited flat A with a surveyor on 4 November 2021. Heavy rugs were seen in the property. To establish the level of noise transference, access was needed into the resident’s home.
5. The offer of noise monitoring equipment was refused by the resident.
6. The landlord consulted with Environmental Services to ask for assistance and to investigate a potential tenancy breach. The landlord was told it would need access to both flats simultaneously to assess the noise. Following this, the landlord could ask for adjustments to be made.
7. The landlord had carried out door to door surveys regarding the noise, but it did not receive any information from other residents.
8. Further checks were made in flat A following the leaks in December 2021 and a dripping stopcock was found. Following the leak in January 2022, flat A was checked and was dry throughout.
9. It agreed it could have engaged with the surveyor and Environmental Services earlier than it did on receipt of the concerns in July 2021. It did not however find reason to uphold the remainder of the complaint.
10. The landlord asked the resident again to allow access to her home so it could conduct a full investigation.
The landlord made internal queries to see if it could replace the flooring in flat A. There is no evidence of an outcome to this request.
On 10 March 2022, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. The request was made as she said the landlord had misunderstood her complaint and had not addressed all points raised. It had ignored the events that led up to the complaint and it did not address the last leak nor why no physical examination of the flooring had been conducted.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 March 2022 to confirm her escalation request was being discussed at a meeting on 18 March 2022. It was subsequently acknowledged on 21 March 2022. The resident was told it would respond by 8 April 2022.
The landlord tried to contact the resident on 29 March 2022 to discuss the outstanding repairs referred to in her escalation request. The resident confirmed the repairs were linked to her neighbours. The landlord confirmed it would progress the repairs directly with her neighbours.
On 4 April 2022, the landlord provided its final complaint response. The landlord’s response confirmed the following:
1. It was sorry the resident had felt she had not been properly supported in relation to the issues which had caused distress and frustration.
2. The resident had only reported one leak from flat A. The landlord had reached out to the resident for more information, but at the time of writing the response, it had not received a reply. It therefore used the information available to it.
3. A senior surveyor had inspected the bathroom of flat A after the first leak. It was confirmed works had been done to an extremely high standard. There was no justification for the bathroom to be removed and retrospective permission was granted.
4. A further leak reported in January 2022 had not affected the resident’s home, however the landlord had visited flat A and there was no evidence of water penetration. The landlord included the report to provide assurance that the matter had been investigated by officers with technical expertise.
5. Flat A had provided photographic evidence from over the years. The flooring was the same as that in place when he first moved in. The only alteration made was to lay rugs to minimise noise transference.
6. It had reviewed antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports for the last 6 months and no other resident had reported any issues.
7. It could not find a case for making any alterations to the existing flooring in flat A, or for any further investigatory work into the fabric of the building.
8. It was still willing to arrange noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property which could verify the level of noise transference. The findings of this could provide a basis for reconsideration of the current position with the flooring.
9. The landlord did not identify any service failure beyond those acknowledged in the stage 1 response. The complaint was not upheld.
The resident brought her complaint to this Service in April 2023 and we decided it was ‘duly made’ on 23 June 2023. She said the landlord had failed to inspect the laminate flooring in flat A and the noise was a constant disturbance day and night. She said the impact on her health had meant she had to stay with friends for lengthy periods of time. As a resolution, the resident asked for the landlord:
1. To thoroughly inspect the flooring and determine if it had been fitted with suitable underlay.
2. To instruct Flat A to fit suitable underlay if required, or to lay carpet with thick rubber underlay throughout the flat. If flat A refuses, she wanted the landlord to fit the carpet.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s repair policy states:
1. A resident must have written permission before conducting any home improvements.
2. A resident must have written permission before replacing fitted carpet with wood or laminate flooring. If such flooring results in complaints from neighbours, residents may be required to remove the flooring and replace it with the original floor covering at their own expense.
3. Critical repairs will be responded to with 4 hours, emergencies within 24 hours, urgent within 5 days and routine within 20 days.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days from the date received, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If at any stage the response is delayed, the resident will be notified, and a new estimated completion date will be provided.

Recurring leaks

The first leak from flat A was reported by the resident on 28 September 2021. The landlord responded appropriately, and the leak was located and repaired. There were no further leaks reported for 3 months which would suggest the issue was resolved in September 2021.
The resident said a plumber had told her the work to the bathroom had been completed to a poor standard. On request from the resident, the landlord instructed a senior surveyor to inspect the bathroom. It was confirmed the work had been done to an extremely high standard, no defects were found, and retrospective permission could be granted. It is not known when this was given, but this would mean that the neighbour was responsible for all future associated repairs. It was reasonable of the landlord to accept the expert opinion of the surveyor, regardless of the comments made by the plumber. As no defects or concerns were raised by the surveyor, it was reasonable of the landlord to confirm it would not remove and reinstate the bathroom, as requested by the resident.
A second leak was reported by flat B on 22 December 2021. The landlord attended the same day and visited several properties which included the resident’s and flat A. The resident said the landlord spent less than 5 minutes in flat A before leaving and no repairs were completed. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord confirmed a leak on the stopcock in flat A was the cause of the leak and that it had been repaired. It was reasonable of the landlord to be guided by its repair records which confirmed the cause of the leak.
The resident said the landlord was refused access into flat A when the third leak was reported on 24 December 2021. The lack of evidence from the landlord surrounding this visit has made it difficult to determine what happened with this leak. It is not known if any further attempts were made to gain access, and if the landlord fulfilled its repair obligations in trying to trace the leak. This raises concerns in relation to the landlord’s record keeping and its ability to resolve repairs, particularly when there is an impact on other properties. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
The final leak was reported by flat C on 19 January 2022. The landlord attended the same day which was within its repair timescales. It tried but failed to access flat B to inspect it. It accessed the neighbour of flat A and found the property was dry. The resident had told the landlord the leak was from flat A, however, on inspection of this property, it was found to be dry throughout with no sign of a leak. The landlord had been put on notice of a leak from above and while it has provided evidence to confirm its attempts to locate the leak, this was not detected. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted additional checks and to monitor the situation on a regular basis to try and locate the leak. There is no evidence the landlord did this, which the Ombudsman finds unreasonable.
In recent correspondence from the resident, she has confirmed there have been no further leaks.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to recurring leaks. The landlord responded appropriately to the first 2 leaks reported, however there is a lack of evidence to confirm its actions with regard to the third leak, and insufficient evidence that it looked for alternative causes to the final leak. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm if the leaks to surrounding properties were directly associated with the refurbishment work completed by flat A. Due to this, it has not been able to fully respond to the resident’s concerns. In acknowledgement of these service failures, the landlord should offer compensation to the resident. Further information is included in the orders section of this report.

Noise transference due to lack of appropriate sound proofing

The landlord’s records confirm the resident initially told it about noise coming from flat A in July 2021. The resident had asked the landlord to speak to flat A which it did. While it reminded flat A of the permitted working hours, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord asked what work was being completed in the flat. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. If the landlord had conducted further checks with flat A, the issue regarding the refurbishment work could potentially have been addressed earlier. The landlord would have been in a better position to discuss the process with flat A and the resident’s concerns may not have escalated in the way they did.
The landlord’s evidence suggests the resident first asked it to inspect the flooring above on 14 October 2021 as she said it was causing noise transference. The landlord responded appropriately by informing the resident the matter had been sent to the surveying team to investigate further.
The resident chased the landlord on 4 occasions through to 5 November 2021 before she received a response. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s inaction at this point was unreasonable. The resident should not have to invest time and effort in continuously chasing it for an update without a response. This is likely to have added to her frustration.
It was on 9 November 2021 that the landlord informed the resident that its systems confirmed the flooring had been left by the previous occupant. It confirmed heavy rugs had been put down to try and reduce the noise. The landlord took the appropriate approach by asking the resident if it could conduct a noise test in her flat. The resident said her current neighbour had replaced the flooring in July 2021 as part of the work to the bathroom. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise it had received photographs from flat A and was satisfied the flooring had not been changed.
On receipt of a GP letter which highlighted the impact the noise was having on the resident, the landlord informed her it would treat this as a priority and would arrange a joint visit. The offer of the visit and the noise testing was refused by the resident, however the landlord continued with the visit to flat A. The resident repeatedly asked for a copy of the inspection findings but there is no evidence they were sent. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. While the landlord may not have been obliged to share a copy of the inspection, it would have been appropriate to provide an update to the resident. This would have reduced the time and effort spent by her in chasing the information and demonstrated what it had done to investigate and offer reassurance.
A further offer of sound testing was made to the resident after the landlord sought advice on the situation. Each response confirmed it needed evidence of the noise levels before it could recommend any further action. These offers were refused by the resident. It was difficult for the landlord to take any further action given the lack of evidence.
At the end of January 2022, the landlord told the resident the flooring issue had been escalated to the surveying team. It is noted however that it had originally been sent to the surveying team before it was sent to the housing team at the beginning of November 2021. Furthermore, it was the surveying team who had confirmed it needed evidence of the noise levels and had recommended the sound tests and noise equipment. The moving of responsibility from one team to another suggests unclear processes within the landlord. This contributed to delay and is likely to have contributed to the resident submitting the complaint on 25 January 2022.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to noise transference. It is acknowledged that the landlord investigated the installation of the flooring which confirmed this had not been installed or changed by flat A. It was satisfied that flat A had made reasonable attempts to minimise the noise by purchasing heavy rugs. It asked for advice from several teams on how to resolve the situation, which resulted in the recommendation of noise monitoring equipment. The landlord had no evidence of the severity of the noise, other than what the resident had told it. On this basis alone, it would have been unreasonable for the landlord to disturb flat A by asking for the flooring to be lifted, or for the landlord to lift it to inspect it for appropriate sound proofing. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord acted reasonably in terms of the actions and offers made.
Where service failure was identified was in its communication to the resident. It was at times delayed, lacked detail, and failed to respond to direct requests for information. These led to the resident spending a lot of time sending emails to it which repeated the same information and requests and is likely to have contributed to her frustration. In acknowledgement of these service failures, the landlord should pay compensation to the resident. Further information is included in the orders section of this report.

Associated complaint

The resident submitted her complaint on 25 January 2022, and it was acknowledged on 27 January 2022. Although the policy does not stipulate a timescale to acknowledge a complaint, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord responded in a reasonable timeframe. The resident was provided with a date to which she could expect a response.
In line with the complaints policy, the landlord informed the resident more time was needed on the investigation. While this is noted, this did not happen until after the expected response date. It is expected that the landlord notifies the resident of any delays as soon as possible and in advance of the original completion date. This will maintain effective communication with the resident and may prevent them investing time and effort in contacting the landlord unnecessarily.
The stage 1 complaint response was provided 13 working days after it was received. While this is slightly over the landlord’s timescale to respond, it is unlikely to have created any serious detriment to the resident.
The resident’s complaint was detailed and asked several specific questions of the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the complaint response did not address all the issues raised. For example, the resident asked why no action had been taken against flat A for the unauthorised work. While it was not obliged to provide the resident with the details on any action taken, it would have been appropriate to confirm that it would address this directly with flat A. In doing so, it would have provided the resident with assurance that it had acted on her concerns. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this question, and this unanswered question contributed to the complaint escalation.
In terms of the leaks, the resident provided information she said she was given by plumbers who had attended flat A. For example, one claimed to have not investigated the leak during a visit, and another had said work had been done to an extremely poor standard and should be removed and reinstated. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had acted on the claims made. While it was reasonable of the landlord to accept the expert opinion of the senior surveyor, in the Ombudsman’s view, this decision-making process was not fully explained to the resident. This is turn meant the points raised were left unanswered and contributed to the escalation of her complaint.
In respect of the flooring, the landlord demonstrated that it visited the property within a reasonable timeframe to inspect it. It had seen heavy rugs in place and was satisfied that flat A had made appropriate efforts to minimise the noise. It also advised of its internal investigation that had confirmed the flooring had not been installed when flat A moved in. The resident had repeatedly asked the landlord to thoroughly inspect the flooring, and to ask Flat A to either lay sound proofing under it or to lay carpet. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not explain why it had not carried out this request. The lack of this information is likely to have led the resident to believe this matter was not being addressed and contributed to the escalation of the complaint.
The complaint escalation was submitted on 10 March 2022, with the resident stating the landlord had not addressed all the points raised. Five days later, she was told her escalation request would be discussed at a meeting, and 7 days later she received an acknowledgement with a response deadline. There is no reference to this within the complaint policy, and the reason for the meeting was not explained to the resident. Without a clear explanation as to why the landlord took this approach, the Ombudsman finds this additional step unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s policy.
The final complaint response was provided within the timeframe of the complaint policy. It provided information to address most of the concerns raised by the resident, however in the Ombudsman opinion, it missed a last opportunity to fully address them all. For example, as at stage 1, the concern regarding the tenancy action was not fully addressed. It could have also taken the opportunity to provide its final position in relation to the flooring. While it offered to install the noise monitoring equipment, it should have made it clear that without this evidence, no further action would be taken. In the Ombudsman’s view, the response did not close this matter off in full.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The evidence confirms an extra step was added into the complaint process before the complaint was escalated. This was not explained to the resident, nor was it part of the complaint policy. The responses at both stages failed to address the resident’s concerns in full which contributed to it being escalated through the landlord’s complaint process and it being referred to the Ombudsman. Despite the landlord acknowledging the reasons for the escalation of the complaint, it failed to apologise for not addressing them in the initial complaint and say how it would learn from this. In acknowledgement of these service failures, the landlord should pay compensation to the resident. Further information is included in the orders section of this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the landlord finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of recurring leaks from the flat above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the landlord finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the noise from the flat above which was said to be due to the lack of sound proofing under the laminate flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the landlord finds service in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not provide evidence to demonstrate its findings and actions for all the leaks reported. This raises concern regarding the landlord’s record keeping and made it difficult to confirm if it met its repair obligations in full. It did not provide confirmation as to whether some leaks were the result of the work completed by flat A, therefore it did not address the resident’s claims in full.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was inconsistent. It was at times delayed, lacked detail, and failed to respond to direct requests from the resident. This led to the resident spending time emailing the landlord and is likely to have contributed to her frustration and the need for her to complain.
The landlord did not comply with its complaint policy in terms of timescales and the additional step taken prior to escalating the complaint. The complaint responses at both stages failed to address the resident’s concerns in full. It failed to identify or apologise for this in its final response and did not show how it would learn from this in future cases.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £200 which is made up of the following:
  1. £50 for the failures identified in its handling of the leaks from the flat above.
  2. £50 for the failures identified in its response to the flooring and the time spent by the resident chasing updates.
  3. £100 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.
The landlord should review its handling of the complaint and provide evidence to demonstrate how it will address the lessons learnt and put these into practice in future cases.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its empty property procedure to include clear guidelines around the removal of laminate flooring when a property is vacated.
The landlord should review its process in relation to the installation and inspection of flooring. The review should provide clear guidance and help to avoid the matter being passed from one team to another, considering the roles and responsibilities of each team involved.
The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of this report to confirm its intentions against the recommendations made within this report.