Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202102166)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102166

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

13 October 2021

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of plumbing noise, and the level of redress it offered in response.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has expressed concern about the landlord’s response to his reports of mechanical noises coming from the property’s heating or plumbing systems. He has said that between September 2020 and March 2021 he was disturbed by reoccurring sounds that varied in both volume and frequency, and the problem was particularly bad at night. Further, the noise was sufficient to prevent him from sleeping, which impacted both his physical and mental health.
3. The resident has expressed frustration at both the length of time it took to resolve the problem, and the level of compensation the landlord eventually offered. He has said he thinks the landlord’s complaint investigation reached the wrong conclusion in terms of proportionate redress, and that the impact of the noise has not been sufficiently recognised. The resident has recently said he still hears noises from the water system, but he accepts them given he is able to get a reasonable night’s sleep.
4. The landlord said it attended the problem on six occasions but, following an investigation, was not able to identify any issues in need of repair. However, it acknowledged delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint and offered him £50 compensation as a result.
5. The resident is an assured tenant, and the tenancy began on 15 April 2010. The property is described as a one-bedroom flat. The resident’s block is served by a communal heating system.
6. The repairs guide shows how the landlord categorises different types of repairs and details its response timescale for each category. It shows the landlord will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, routine repairs within 28 calendar (working) days and major repairs within three months. Emergency repairs are defined as presenting an immediate danger to health and safety or property.
7. Routine repairs are defined as ‘Defects that can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to the resident or third party, without long-term deterioration of the building.’
8. The landlord’s complaints policy document shows it operates a two stage internal complaints process. Where it gives timescales, they also refer to working days. An online search shows the landlord updated its complaints policy in May 2021, but this assessment has been made using the version of the policy that was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint.
9.  Section 4.1.2. of the document shows at stage one the landlord will aim to:

   ‘Respond within 10 days of acknowledging their complaint. If more time is required, we will agree a new response time with the customer and we will update weekly beyond the initial 10 days’

   and

   ‘Provide a full response to the complaint confirming the outcome to the complaint, any compensation awarded, in agreement with our Compensation Policy and the investigation conducted, this will be provided to the complainant within 10 days or if not possible a new date agreed with the complainant directly (ideally with a maximum of a further 10 days)’

10. The landlord has given evidence that includes the property’s repairs history, its internal complaint notes, both its repairs guide and complaints policy documents, a diagram of the building’s water services and copies of relevant correspondence.
11. The resident has given evidence that includes audio recordings, his timeline of events and a petition letter signed by several of his fellow residents. He has previously said an engineer he works with pointed to the block’s plant room as a likely source of the noise, based on one of the resident’s audio recordings.

Summary of events

12. The repairs history shows the resident first reported the noise on
    21 September 2020. This entry shows he had noticed the sound of rushing water through pipes in his bathroom approximately two weeks earlier. He described the problem as a large volume of water passing through the system every ten seconds. The resident attributed the problem to a central boiler.
13. The next entry in the repairs history is also from the resident. It is dated
    26 October 2020 which was 35 calendar days later. The resident said the loud droning noise, coming from the water pipes in his bathroom, which he referred to in his previous complaint had returned and was now louder. The noise was described as sounding like a motorbike and occurring around every ten seconds.
14. On 5 November 2020 an external contractor appointed by the landlord attended the property to inspect the problem. The landlord’s correspondence shows the contractor made the following comment:

    ‘checked HIU operation, all OK, noise coming from outside of flat, possible cold water booster pump or system top up pump.’

    The resident updated the repairs history the following day to say the problem had not been resolved and the situation was making him ill.

15. On 18 November 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. He said he had to close his bathroom door at night to be able to sleep, and the situation had been ongoing since October 2020. Further, the situation was stressful and had aggravated his tinnitus. The resident notified the landlord that, due to the discomfort and diminished quality of his tenancy, he wished to be compensated for the inconvenience the situation had caused him.
16. The landlord’s complaint notes confirm it acknowledged the resident’s complaint the following day. They also show the resident was advised he would be given an initial response by 2 December 2021. The acknowledgement does indicate there may be delays in the landlord’s complaint handling due to the pandemic, although it would look to update the resident as soon as possible.
17. The resident’s timeline shows the landlord’s own repairs specialist attended his property on 24 November 2020. It said he felt the noise was coming from either a toilet cistern or the water tank on the roof of the block. The landlord’s internal correspondence from the same day shows a different external contractor was also investigating at the same time. This is confirmed by the following email:

    ‘So I have had (external contractor) out and not long spoken to the engineer. I have no pumps here and that they are not on the asset database all I have is the mains feed and the tanks. (He) tried (the resident’s flat number) and was not answering so tried a neighbour and asked them as well and they said that it is only every now and again and low.’

    It is noted the landlord’s diagram does not show any pumps in the block’s system and that it suggests water pressure is provided by several tanks located on the roof.

18. The repairs history shows the landlord conducted a further inspection on
    27 November 2020. Its internal correspondence confirms it was carried out by the landlord’s heating and hot water specialist, who ultimately recommended a further internal inspection. Another internal email on the same day shows the landlord’s senior repairs supervisor confirmed the block had no pumps, only tanks and the mains water feed.
19.  Around 28 November 2020 the resident gave the landlord a letter signed by two of his fellow residents. It said that the noise from the pipework had been growing and was causing a disturbance. Further this disturbance was interfering with the residents’ standard of living and health.
20. The repairs history shows a further inspection was conducted on
    4 December 2020. The complaint notes suggest the inspection was conducted by another of the landlord’s external contractors. The notes confirm the resident’s flat was inspected along with other flats above and below, but no significant issues that would lead to the noise were found. The contractor then attended the roof to check on the water tanks and reported that a filling valve could be the cause. Following his report, the landlord raised the issue with an external contractor who specialised in this area of engineering.
21. The complaint notes show the landlord contacted the resident on
    11 December 2020 to discuss its findings at stage one of its internal complaints process. The resident was assured that a further inspection would take place on
    15 December 2020, and he was offered compensation to acknowledge what had happened so far. The notes said the resident was happy to close his complaint based on the landlord’s resolution. However, they did not record details of the landlord’s rationale for offering compensation or the amount it had agreed. The resident’s later correspondence with the landlord gives the amount as either £170 or £175. It is noted the landlord has not disputed this figure.
22. They also show the inspection scheduled for 15 December 2020 was attended as agreed. However, the landlord’s internal correspondence, following the inspection, confirms the contractor was unable to gain access to the block’s plant room to complete the inspection. 
23. On 21 December 2020 the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints process. This was on the basis the noise problem had not been resolved by the previous inspection, and the problem was still disturbing his sleep.  
24. On 23 December 2020 the landlord issued its written stage one complaint response. The response confirmed the landlord had upheld the complaint, and that it had been escalated to stage two of its complaints process. Details of the landlord’s rationale for upholding, or the amount of compensation previously agreed were not included in the letter, which said the landlord was still awaiting the results of the previous inspection.
25. On 12 January 2021 the resident chased the landlord on the basis the problem had still not been resolved. He also asked when he could expect to receive his compensation. He issued further correspondence chasing the agreed compensation on 26 January 2021.
26. On 27 January 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s compensation query. It said that it would be able to issue a final response letter when it had a resolution, and this would include details of the compensation offered.
27. On 28 January 2021 the landlord’s specialist external contractor carried out a further inspection. It took place in the evening as previous daytime inspections had failed to identify a repair. The contractor met with the resident and listened to his audio recordings. The contractor did not hear any noise in the resident’s flat, so he carried out various tests, whilst the resident remained in the property to listen, from the water tanks on the roof and the surrounding flats. He was unable to access the block’s plant room but, following the tests, reached the conclusion that the source of the noise was the flushing of toilets elsewhere in the block.
28. In a follow up email on 5 February 2021, the specialist contractor advised the landlord that nothing could be done to minimise the sound of toilets flushing elsewhere in the block.
29. Around 19 March 2021 the landlord carried out a joint inspection with a different external contractor. Its complaint notes show they visited the property and the surrounding flats but were unable to find any issues. They also met with the resident and listened to an audio recording, but they were unable to use it to identify the source of the problem.
30. Around 30 March 2021 the landlord delivered a letter to other residents of the block. It asked them to get in touch with further details if they had been affected by ‘any water hammering or humming noise’ especially at night.
31. On 19 April 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to acknowledge it had received further audio recordings from him, along with additional signatures on his petition. The landlord said it had conducted numerous inspections without identifying a problem and that it was unlikely anything further could be done. It also suggested that the resident asked the signatories of the petition to contact it directly to assist its investigation.
32. On 22 April 2021 the landlord issued its final response letter. It said that a further four inspections had taken place following the out of hours visit, and that none of the previous inspections had been able to identify any issues or hear any noises. Further, that no response had been received from other residents to the landlord’s request for more information about the problem. It also considered how the complaint had been handled at stage one but did not identify any poor handling at the initial stage. However, due to a delay in issuing the stage two response the landlord partially upheld the complaint and awarded £50 in compensation.
33. In his correspondence with this service on 2 August 2021 the resident confirmed he still hears noise from the block’s water system, but he accepts the situation given he has been able to sleep reasonably well lately. His correspondence confirms the problem was at its peak between September 2020 and March 2021.

Assessment and findings

34. It is not disputed that the resident has been experiencing noise disturbance and it is recognised that the situation has been distressing for him. Whilst our assessment has considered the resident’s audio recordings, this service is unable to make a finding as to whether the level of noise has been excessive. However, we can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
35. No evidence has been seen by this service to show the landlord should have treated the resident’s reports as an emergency repair. However, it is clear from the repairs history that the landlord did not act on the resident’s initial noise report dated 21 September 2020. This was contrary to the landlord’s repairs guidance which shows routine repairs should be completed within 28 days. Since it is reasonable to expect that, at least, an initial inspection should have occurred within 28 days, the fact it took another report from the resident to start the landlord’s investigation represents a service failure on its part. It is noted that the landlord’s initial inspection took place 10 calendar days after the resident’s second report, this was a reasonable timeframe in line with the landlord’s guidance.  
36. The evidence shows that between November 2020 and March 2021 the landlord completed at least seven separate inspections of the noise. It shows that these inspections involved three external contractors and at least two of the landlord’s internal specialists. It also shows the resident’s audio recordings were considered on more than one occasion, that an out of hours inspection was arranged to engage with his concerns and that other residents were asked for their comments directly with no response. Further, that a broad range of potential causes were explored based on the professional opinion of several qualified engineers.
37. Whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord did not inspect the plant room within the above period, there is no evidence to show that it contained pumping equipment with the potential to cause the described noise disturbance. Further, the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its engineers in determining the cause of the problem, and the evidence shows they concluded the likely cause lay elsewhere in the block.
38. Whilst it is acknowledged that these efforts took place over a period of around four months, this was reasonable given that no specific cause, in need of repair, had been identified during the inspections. It would therefore be unreasonable to expect the same resolution timescale as an identifiable routine repair. Ultimately, the above evidence shows that the landlord treated the resident’s concerns seriously and made reasonable efforts to find a solution in his interests. That said, there was an initial service failure as has been set out above.
39. In relation to its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged a delay to its stage two response and awarded £50 compensation for the inconvenience. However, the relevant policy document shows stage one complaints should receive a response within 10 working days. Where this is not possible, a new response time would be agreed with the resident and weekly updates would be provided. In this case, the evidence shows the stage one written response was issued on 23 December 2020, 34 working days later. Further, there is no evidence to show a target response date was agreed with the resident, or that weekly updates were provided after the first ten working days.
40. It is recognised that the landlord’s complaint acknowledgement indicates there may be delays due to the ‘unprecedented’ and ‘uncertain’ circumstances following the pandemic. Further, that the landlord has now simplified its complaints procedure. However, the landlord’s handling of the above delays was not in line with its relevant official complaints policy, and the acknowledgement did not confirm these aspects of its policy had been suspended. As a result, the above represents a delay at stage one and a service failure as shown by the landlord’s applicable complaints policy.
41. Further, the policy document shows its intent at stage one is to provide a full response to the complaint, which confirms the outcome along with any compensation awarded. Whilst it confirmed the complaint had been upheld, no rationale for upholding, details of the agreed compensation or reasoning behind it were included. Nor was the agreed compensation paid within the ten working day timescale set out by the policy. Given the above, the landlord’s stage one response was not in line with its relevant complaints policy and was an inappropriate reply to the resident’s concerns. This represents a service failure on the part of the landlord. It is noted the missing information was also not recorded in the landlord’s complaint notes.
42. Whilst the landlord is entitled to reach different conclusions following an investigation at stage two, it could have identified its initial failure to respond to the initial reports of noise along with the delay at stage one based on its repairs history, and complaint notes. These failures may have proved easier to identify if a clear rational had been included in the stage one response. For the reasons given above, the landlord offered an unreasonable level of redress in proportion to these failures.  
43. It was appropriate that the landlord did not offer the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience resulting directly from the noise disturbance. This is because, based on the evidence, the noise disturbance did not occur due to failure on the part of the landlord, for example failure to resolve an identified repair. It is recognised several inspections took place that required the resident to be in attendance and that this will have been inconvenient. However, no evidence has been seen to show the inspections were either avoidable or unnecessary to investigate the source of the noise disturbance.

Determination (decision)

44. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the level of redress it offered in response to the resident’s reports of noise.

Reasons

45. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not account for its failure to respond to the resident’s initial repair request reporting the noise.
46. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not account for the delay in its stage one response.
47. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not recognise that its stage one response was inappropriate.
48. It is proportionate for the landlord to offer compensation to redress any detriment caused to the resident as a result of any failures on its part.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

49. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £200 compensation within four weeks comprising:
    1. £50 for the initial failure to respond to the resident’s repair request
    2. £50 for the delay at stage one of the complaints process
    3. £50 for the inappropriate stage one response
    4. £50 for the acknowledged delay at stage two (if this has already been paid then the total compensation will reduce to £150)

Recommendations

50. The landlord to ensure its response letters include details of any agreed compensation and a rationale.
51. The landlord to record details of any agreed compensation in its internal notes
52. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above order and its intentions regarding the recommendations to this service within four weeks of the date of this report.