Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202112333)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112333

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

6 June 2022


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 concerns how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise transference due to noisy plumbing in the building.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. The resident has experienced issues of noise transference within the building as a result of loud pipework.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 April 2021 and requested to raise a complaint. He described the elements of the complaint (some of which have not been brought to the Ombudsman for consideration) including noise nuisance caused by loud pipework in the property and that this had an adverse effect on his health and sleep patterns.
  4. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 30 April 2021.
    1. It apologised for the delay in responding to his reports and recognised that he had informed it that he could hear the toilet flush from his neighbour’s property which had interrupted his sleep and it would investigate the issues which may include a joint inspection of the resident’s and neighbour’s properties.
    2. It apologised for the poor communication he had received and offered £30 compensation for time and trouble, and stated it would work with the resident going forward to reach a resolution.
  5. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 3 May 2021. The landlord sent a stage two complaint response on 24 May 2021. It informed the resident that:
    1. It had experienced issues in contacting his neighbour, but had been able to arrange an appointment for 26 May 2021 to inspect the plumbing.
  6. It is noted the landlord offered £50 redress for its failures related to a separate aspect of the resident’s complaint, which the Ombudsman has not considered.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 27 August 2021. He described the outstanding issues of the complaint noting the landlord had taken no action to identify and resolve the issue of noise transference from the plumbing in the building.
  8. As a resolution to the case, the resident requested that the landlord properly investigate and resolve the noise transference issue, and to compensate him for the effect this ongoing issue has caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. During the complaint process and in his correspondence with this Service, the resident has described the effect on his health caused by the noise nuisance. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or through insurers as a personal injury claim.
  2. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded.

How the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise transference

  1. In response to the resident’s reports of loud noise from the pipework when the neighbour’s toilet was flushed, the landlord agreed to investigate the matter and informed the resident in the stage two response that it had arranged an appointment with his neighbour on 26 May 2021.
  2. This was appropriate action for the landlord to take as per the terms of the leasehold agreement, it is responsible for the repair and upkeep of the communal areas and fabric of the building. The landlord would need to determine if the problem was as a result of an issue with the external pipework, and would therefore be its responsibility to resolve.
  3. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to this Service relating to the 26 May 2021 and what its findings were. Following enquires from the resident on 1 and 15 June 2021 asking for an update and whether a surveyor had visited the neighbour’s property, the landlord replied on 1 July 2021. It informed the resident that an acoustic insulation test was carried out “a few years ago” and it was satisfied that the block met building regulations.
  4. However, the landlord made no mention of its findings relating to the pipework. Following further correspondence from the resident asking the landlord what investigations it had undertaken relating to the pipework and the noise when the neighbour’s toilet was flushed, the landlord replied on 25 August 2021 and informed the resident that it would make further internal inquires and then provide an update. No further correspondence from the landlord relating to this issue has been provided to this Service.
  5. Therefore, there has been service failure by the landlord in how it responded to this issue. No evidence has been provided that the landlord carried out the inspection of the pipework in the neighbour’s property as agreed in its complaint response, nor did it properly respond to the resident when he requested updates on this issue in the three months following the end of the complaints process.
  6. In order to resolve this aspect of the case, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to inform him of what inspections have been undertaken to the pipework in the neighbour’s property, what its findings were, whether any follow-on work has been undertaken or proposed, and whose responsibility it is to complete this work. It would also be appropriate for the landlord to award compensation recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to chase up responses from the landlord.
  7. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (which is available on our website) recommends a payment of £50 to £150 in instances of service failure which had an impact on a complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. As an example of when this level of redress should be considered, the guidance suggests “repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls”. Therefore, a payment of £150 would be reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it responded to the resident’s reports of noise transference due to noisy plumbing in the building.

Orders

  1. For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.
  2. The landlord is also ordered to write to the resident to inform him of what inspections have been undertaken to the pipework in the neighbour’s property and the building as a whole, what its findings were, whether any follow-on work has been undertaken or proposed, and whose responsibility it is to complete this work.