Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202112605)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112605

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

27 May 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 is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the communal door.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a flat within a block of flats and is adjacent to a communal area with a communal door serving the building.
  2. According to the landlord’s records the resident raised concerns in 2019 about noise coming from the communal door, she said that she could hear everything as her bedroom was adjacent to the door. Its records showed that in 2019 the communal door was eased however it still slammed and made a loud noise when released.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 25 September 2020 about the noise nuisance from the locking of the communal entrance door. She said that the noise was constant day and night due to others entering and leaving, which affected her mental health and prevented her from having a full night sleep. She said that the landlord’s operatives attended (the date of this visit is unclear) to look at the external door but advised that there was nothing they could do because it was caused by the bolt inside the door unlocking. The resident said she did not accept this and suggested changing the door the other way around or the use of a different locking system. She said she had been “putting up with” it for over a year but did not seem to be getting anywhere.
  4. Internal emails between the landlord and its staff in October 2020 showed that it was aware of the resident’s ongoing issues of noise nuisance. It noted that a contractor attended and found that the door was “fine”, the problem being the locking mechanism, but was not a fault “just generally loud”. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 23 January 2021 and advised that it had reviewed the history of the resident’s account, spoke with its property team and with the contractors involved. It advised that its contractors confirmed no further works could be carried out as the door and locking mechanism were functioning correctly. The landlord apologised for the delay in addressing her complaint and for the inconvenience caused, it offered the resident £50 compensation.
  5. Between July and August 2021 the resident chased the landlord for the next steps to resolve the noise nuisance. In August 2021, it informed the resident that one of its contractors would not attempt to fix a door that had an entry system on it, and the other would only fix the mechanical and electrical sections of the door. It explained that as a result there were delays which would require its mechanical and electrical team to get involved to complete the repair.
  6. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 2 September 2021 stating that the issue had been ongoing for “nearly two years”, she raised similar concerns as in her formal complaint in September 2020. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 13 October 2021 and apologised that the resident was dissatisfied with its response. It recalled that the contractor visited on 24 August 2021 and identified that the door was damaged at the top of the hinge however it was not something that they could repair, and so it was passed to another contractor. It said on 14 September 2021, an engineer attended and carried out a survey, in which he identified that an auto door engineer was required to resolve the issue. The landlord said that the contractor would attend to replace the lock, however, could not guarantee that it would completely stop the noise as the lock was fitted inside the metal door. It noted that it would inform the resident once a start date was given. The landlord offered the resident £75.00 compensation for the time and trouble caused
  7.  The resident passed her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she said that the landlord had not completed the works or provided an explanation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the communal door

  1. The resident’s lease agreement advises that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance, improvement, repairs and renewal of the common parts.
  2. The resident advised that the noise from the communal door affected her sleep and impacted her mental health. It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer, if it has one. This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which 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.
  3. When a complaint of statutory noise nuisance is made to a landlord by one of its residents, it should take such steps as are reasonably practical to investigate the reports. The resident raised a formal complaint in September 2020 about the noise nuisance caused by accessing the communal entrance door, which is adjacent to her bedroom. The landlord has relied on the findings of its qualified contractors, who at the time, deemed that the door and locking mechanism functioned correctly, but was “just generally loud” and that no further works could be carried out. The resident said she did not accept this, she suggested changing the door the other way around or the use of a different locking system. The landlord was entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified contractors concerning the works which could reasonably be carried out to the door, and accordingly the decision to not carry out works was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. Following further reports of noise nuisance from the resident, and her concerns about the length of time taken to resolve the issues, the landlord’s records show that it arranged for second contractor to attend and further inspect the locking system in August 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange another inspection to identify any faults and or possible resolutions to prevent the noise. Between August and October 2021, the landlord chased its contractors for updates and completion of works, however it would be limited on the actions it could take.
  5. Although the landlord is expected to maintain the structure of the building and communal areas, it is not required to make improvements. Therefore, the landlord would not be required to change the door (provided the door was fully functional) or to add sound proofing to the resident’s property to reduce noise transference.
  6. The resident may wish to consider fitting sound proofing herself to her property in an effort to resolve the noise issue. The resident would require the landlord’s permission to do this and if she wants to pursue this option, she should contact the landlord and the landlord should consider her request and explain its decision clearly to the resident.
  7. In accordance with the landlord’s repair guidance, repairs should be completed within 28 days. However, in this particular case, due factors outside the landlord’s control it was unable to complete repairs within the set timescale. The primary reason for the delay in works appears to be the contractor’s inability to carry out the necessary works, which resulted in delays. It is understandable that there would be an impact on the service provided by the landlord, such as in this case, which it could not fully mitigate. Nonetheless, the landlord acted reasonably by trying to progress the repairs and by arranging for its mechanical and electrical team to complete the repairs. The landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience the issues caused the resident, it apologised and offered a £75 compensation in its final complaint response, this was in line with its compensation policy which says awards of £51 to £150 should be considered where there have been several errors by the landlord in relation to a service/repair.
  8. It is also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests awards of between £50 to £250 for cases where the Ombudsman has found that there has been service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples include, failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact, In this case, the landlord, for the most part, took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and to arrange repairs to cease the noise. There were some delays in completing repairs but this did not affect the overall outcome as the landlord ultimately concluded that it was not possible to carry out any further works to the door which would help reduce the noise.

The landlord’s complaint handling

17. The landlord’s complaint process sys the landlord aims to respond within ten days of acknowledging the resident’s complaint.  It states that If more time is required, the landlord will agree a new response time with the resident and update weekly beyond the initial 10 days. The resident raised a formal complaint on 25 September 2020, and the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 23 January 2021, this was outside of its set response time. The landlord apologised for the delay in addressing the resident’s complaint and for the inconvenience caused, it offered the resident £50 compensation for its recognised service failure. The landlord’s offer of £50 was in line with its compensation guidance, which suggests awards of this amount where there has been a short delay which caused inconvenience to the resident.  It is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above and was appropriate in recognition of its failure to meet service standards for responses.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaints about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the communal door and associated complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

19. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the total compensation of £125 as offered in its complaint responses.