Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Southwark Council (202309545)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309545

Southwark Council

22 November 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transfer from the cold-water tank room.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which started in July 2016. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette. The housing records confirm the resident has depression and anxiety.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 13 August 2020 that her property vibrated following the completion of work to the communal cold-water tank room which was adjacent to her home. The landlord responded on the same day and noted that the new cold-water system was not operational, but it would arrange for an acoustics expert to offer advice on sound proofing once the work was completed. It said it would act on any recommendations that were made, including sound proofing the tank room if required.
  3. The landlord’s contractor confirmed on 19 April 2023 that the valves had been changed and it had arranged for sound proofing to be installed in the cold-water tank room.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 5 June 2023. She said there was a constant noise from the cold-water tank room.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 June 2023 and said it would correspond with the resident through her Solicitor in accordance with its disrepair protocol. It said this was because the resident had a disrepair claim. The resident told the landlord on the same day that she did not have a solicitor and asked for her complaint to be escalated.
  6. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 25 January 2024 and said:
    1. The resident’s complaint about noise vibration did not form part of her disrepair claim and should have been investigated at stage 1 of its complaints procedure.
    2. It could find no record of the resident reporting the issue to its repairs service. It did, however, note she raised concerns directly with its contractor. The contractor communicated with the resident up to 28 August 2023, when it advised her a pump specialist would be visiting on the following day.
    3. It chased up the contractor on a number of occasions in November 2023, but no response was received. A new contractor was appointed in December 2023.
    4. The new contractor visited the resident’s home on 17 January 2024 and established the noise was audible in her living room.
    5. A pump specialist visited the resident’s home on 18 January 2024 and confirmed the water pump needed new seals and bearings. It would chase up the matter to ensure the works were progressed as soon as possible.
    6. It upheld the resident’s complaint and would award her £600 compensation. This was made up of £250 for the delays, £250 for the distress and £100 for her time and trouble having to pursue her complaint.

Post complaint events.

  1. The landlord arranged for the seals and bearings to be replaced on 28 February 2024.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord’s arbitration service on 1 April 2024 and said she could still hear noise vibrations from the water-tank room. She said she wanted the cold-water tank room to be fully sound proofed. She told the landlord on 14 April 2024 that the noise was worse and was ‘‘driving her insane.’’ The landlord arranged for the wall between the resident’s home and the cold-water tank to be sound proofed on 26 April 2024.
  3. The resident confirmed on 14 May 2024 that there was a significant reduction in the noise, but noted there was still some noise. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 17 May 2024 to assess the noise levels. It said it could not hear any noise in the living room and noted there would always be some form of noise transfer when the pumps were running. It requested a further quote to soundproof an additional wall in the cold-water tank room.
  4. The landlord increased its offer of compensation by £275 on 24 May 2024 from £600 to £875. This was for the delays and distress caused to the resident between February 2024 and March 2024 (£125) and for the resident’s time and trouble (£150). A further wall was soundproofed on 8 June 2024.
  5. The landlord carried out sound tests on 20 June 2024 and sound levels between 60 and 80 decibels were recorded in the cold-water tank room.
  6. The resident’s complaint was considered by the landlord’s arbitration service on 25 September 2024 and a home visit has been arranged for 28th November 2024; after which a final hearing will be held. The landlord told this Service that no further works are planned and it awaits the outcome of the arbitration hearing. The resident said she can still hear noise in the living room and bedrooms.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident first raised concerns about noise transfer from the cold-water tank room in 2020. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
  2. Taking account of the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from when the resident made a complaint in June 2023, up to January 2024, when the landlord issued its final complaint response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise transfer from the cold-water tank room

  1. It is not this Service’s role to establish whether the noise transfer reported by the resident occurred or to determine the cause of the noise. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The Ombudsman acknowledges the distress and impact that noise can cause on a resident’s wellbeing. While statutory noise is outside of our jurisdiction, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that she was affected by noise from the cold-water tank room.
  3. Part E of the Building Regulations came into force in the UK in 2003. It prescribes acoustic insulation levels for new and converted residential buildings and sets decibel levels (dBA) for airborne and impact noise. These standards do not apply to any home built or converted before 2003. There is case law that landlords are under no obligation to soundproof homes to a standard above the one that was in force at the time of its construction.
  4. Landlords must also ensure their properties are free of potential category 1 hazards in accordance with their obligations under the homes and communities agency’s regulatory standards. The home standard requires landlords to ensure their homes meet the Government’s decent homes standard. Section 5 of the decent homes’ standard says ‘‘to be decent, a dwelling should be free of category 1 hazards’’ under the HHSRS.
  5. The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 5 June 2023 that she had to live with constant noise from the cold-water tank room. She noted she lived in silence before the work was completed and the issue had spoilt her children’s lives. There is no evidence the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns at this point. This was a failure.
  6. An inspection of the property would have enabled the landlord to determine the level of noise and consider whether it needed to take any action or advise the resident that she could install sound proofing herself. This is because landlords are not under any obligation to carryout improvements such as installing sound proofing where the tenancy agreement does not require it to do so. In this case, the resident’s tenancy agreement does not place any such obligation on the landlord.
  7.  The landlord told the resident on 13 June 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response that she needed to direct her concerns through her solicitor given she had a disrepair claim. This was not appropriate given the resident’s complaint about the cold-water tank room did not relate to her disrepair claim. This caused delays and meant the resident was not clear on the steps the landlord was taking to resolve the matter. This was a failure and led to the resident having to escalate her complaint.
  8. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 19 July 2023 in which she noted she was unable to relax in her living room because of the constant noise. She said that there had been some improvements since the valves were fitted, but the noise was still significant and she was unable to complete everyday activities such as reading to her children and watching television. This was a further failure and meant she was unclear on what action would be taken by the landlord.
  9. The landlord’s contractor told the resident on 28 August 2023 that it had been difficult to identify the cause of the noise. It said it had changed the valves that discharged the water but found there was still a noise in the resident’s property. It also noted that it had mounted the pumps on to anti-vibration plates to minimise the vibration following the visit to the resident’s home, although no evidence was provided by the landlord to this Service confirming this to be the case. It was reasonable for it to confirm that it had arranged for a pump specialist to visit on 29 August 2023. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
  10. There is no evidence an inspection was carried out by a pump specialist. Neither is there any evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request for an update on 18 September 2023. This demonstrates poor record keeping by the landlord. This Service expects landlords to keep accurate and clear records of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
  11. The housing records confirm the landlord chased up its contractor on several occasions in November 2023 and asked for an update following its email to the resident on 28 August 2023. This demonstrated it was resolution focused and wanted to put things right for the resident. It told the resident on 29 November 2023 that it was waiting for information from the contractor.
  12. The landlord told the resident on 18 December 2023 that it had appointed a new contractor to investigate the noise. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. The new contractor phoned the resident on the same day but was unable to contact her. There is no evidence the contractor followed up the matter even though the resident returned the telephone call on the same day. This led to delays and meant the resident was not clear on what steps were being taken by the landlord to resolve the matter.
  13. The contractor visited the resident’s home on 17 January 2024 and confirmed the noise was ‘‘very audible’’ in the living room. It also confirmed the noise was coming from the cold-water tank room, although no noise monitoring readings were taken. This meant it did not establish if the noise levels affected the resident’s peaceful enjoyment of her home. This was a failure. It said the cold-water tank room would need to be sound proofed if the noise was due to the day to day running of the equipment rather than because of defective parts. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with an update on the same day and confirm it had arranged for a pump specialist to visit on 18 January 2024.
  14. The landlord’s contractor confirmed on 22 January 2024 that the cold- water pumps required new seals and bearings. It provided the landlord with a quote for the work and confirmed the system was quieter after being turned off and on again. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 24 January 2024.
  15. The landlord noted on 25 January 2024 in its final complaint response that it could find no record of the resident reporting issues with the cold-water tank room and said she had liaised directly with the contractor. This assertion was incorrect. The housing records confirm the resident raised concerns with both the contractor and the landlord on many of the dates highlighted in the complaint response. This demonstrates poor record keeping by the landlord.
  16. The landlord confirmed the seals and bearings needed to be replaced on the pumps and it was waiting for a quote for the work. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm it would monitor the work and update the resident once it was completed. It also offered the resident £500 compensation for the delay (£250) and distress (£250).
  17. In summary, the landlord failed to carry out any meaningful investigations into the resident’s reports of noise transfer and was slow to act. Whilst it carried out some work, this did not resolve the problem and the resident was left in a situation where the noise was described as ‘‘very audible’’ by the landlord’s contractor. It is evident the situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience. She told the landlord she was unable to undertake routine activities in her home and the noise transfer was present in a number of rooms. She also said the noise was horrendous and her family could not relax in the living room. The landlord’s offer of £500 compensation was not fair or proportionate in the circumstances.
  18. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise transfer from the cold-water tank room, for which it is ordered to pay an additional £500 compensation on top of that which it has already offered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there has been a permanent impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. Complaints are acknowledged within 3 working days. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 15 working days. This is not in accordance with the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint’s Handling Code (the Code). The landlord responds to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident made a complaint on 5 June 2023. The complaint was not acknowledged until 9 June 2023. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. This was a failure.
  3. The landlord did not seek to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes she was seeking before issuing its stage 1 complaint response on 13 June 2023. This was not in accordance with the Code. Had it done so, it would have established the resident’s complaint was not connected to her disrepair claim. This was a further failure and meant the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns and led to her having to escalate her complaint.
  4. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 13 June 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 18 October 2023. This was a failure. The landlord did not seek to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes she was seeking. This was a further failure. The landlord said it would issue its final complaint response on 15 November 2023.
  5. The landlord told the resident on 14 November 2023 that it needed more time to investigate her complaint. it said it would provide a response by 29 November 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 19 November 2023 and noted it was still waiting for information and informed her of her right to escalate her complaint to this Service. This was appropriate and in accordance with the Code. It said it would provide a response in the following week, but there is no evidence it did this. This was a failure and meant the resident was not clear on what action was being taken by the landlord.
  6. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 15 January 2024; some 7 months after the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. This was a further failure. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay and to note that it should have addressed her concerns in its stage 1 complaint response. This demonstrated it took learning from the complaint.
  7. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered. In this case, the landlord said it had shared its concerns with its contractor but did not set out the steps it was taking to prevent a recurrence. This was a failure.
  8. In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints procedure and it failed to address the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 complaint response. There were also delays in issuing its final complaintresponse. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was not fair or proportionate in the circumstances. It is evident the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She had to chase the landlord up on a number of occasions and believed it was not taking her complaint seriously. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, for which it is ordered to pay an additional £100 compensation on top of the £100 compensation already offered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise transfer from the cold-water tank room.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
  2. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1,200 compensation. The £600 previously offered by the landlord may be taken off this amount if already paid. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
    1. £1,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of noise transfer.
    2. £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her complaint.
  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and arrange for the noise levels to be tested. If it is established that the noise levels are not reasonable, the landlord must confirm what steps it will take to resolve the matter for the resident. It must agree these in writing and provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the action plan, including timescales for completing any works.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord pays the resident the £275 compensation offered after she had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.