Wandsworth Council (202233941)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233941

Wandsworth Council

7 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 the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of noise reports about the resident.
    2. Decision not to replace the resident’s front door.

Background

  1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since February 2021. The property is a 3 bedroom maisonette and she lives there with her 3 children.
  2. The property is managed by a resident management organisation (RMO) on behalf of the landlord. For the purposes of this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all actions and decisions taken by the RMO and the landlord are referred to as being by the landlord.
  3. Between March and August 2022, the resident reported faults with the front door. In August and September 2022, the landlord carried out repairs and fed back that a new door was not required. The following month, the landlord attended the property and noted that no faults were found with the door or the lock.
  4. In January 2023, following reports of noise nuisance, the landlord sent 2 letters to all households in the block. It asked residents to be mindful of noise caused by washing machine usage late at night and to only use these between the hours of 8am and 9pm. The following month, the landlord spoke to the resident about reports of noise nuisance from her property, including washing machine use late at night and loud music. It noted that it asked her to be mindful of the impact of this.
  5. In February 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said a neighbour had wrongly reported her for causing noise nuisance. She had also reported repairs to the landlord and nothing had been done. She felt harassed, discriminated against and pressurised.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 24 February 2023 it said the resident had accepted that she had used her washing machine late at night and so it concluded that the reports may have been justified. During a call the previous week, she had confirmed there were no outstanding repairs but raised concerns about the front door. The outcome of its inspections of the door were that it did not require replacement. There was no evidence the resident had been harassed, discriminated against or pressurised by neighbours or the landlord, but it was sorry she felt that way.
  7. On 3 March 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said she was being monitored by neighbours and the landlord and did not feel free to play music or use her washing machine. She had reported repairs, including the front door and a crack in the ceiling but nothing had been done. The landlord had been out to look at the door and said it was fine, but it was not.
  8. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 23 March 2023 it said the complaint was not upheld as the action taken in respect of the noise and the door were sensible in the circumstances. There was no reference to a ceiling crack in the original complaint so it had referred this to the relevant department to investigate and respond separately.
  9. The same day, the resident escalated her complaint to this Service. She said her neighbour made constant reports of noise and she felt harassed. She had been told she could only use her washing machine between 8am and 9pm, but this was not always possible as she worked. The landlord had declined her requests to replace the front door and said that it was in full working order, but this was incorrect.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. When the resident escalated her complaint to this Service in March 2023, she said she had reported a crack in the ceiling to the landlord but nothing had been done about it. This issue was not raised within her initial complaint of 13 February 2023, but was included in her escalation request of 3 March 2023.
  2. The landlord treated this as a service request and provided a brief response within the stage 2 response letter, but did not formally assess its handling of the issue under its internal complaints procedure. Therefore, as this issue has not yet exhausted the complaints process, it falls outside the scope of this investigation (reflected at paragraph 42.a of the Scheme). If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this issue, she can raise this as a formal complaint with the landlord and escalate to this Service, on completion of its internal procedure, if necessary.
  3. The resident told the landlord that the matters complained of negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of noise reports about the resident

  1. The landlord received reports about noise from the resident’s property caused by loud music and washing machine use late at night. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy says that persistent and unreasonable noise would be categorised as ASB. In this case, there is no evidence that the reported incidents of loud music were persistent and as the use of a washing machine is a normal, household activity, this would not be considered unreasonable. Therefore, the noise reported would not fall under the landlord’s definition of ASB.
  2. While not ASB, as the noise caused disturbance, it was reasonable that the landlord  categorised this as ‘neighbour nuisance’ and took action to address it. The landlord’s ASB policy said it would take reasonable steps to investigate neighbour nuisance, and do all it could to help resolve issues, including encouraging mediation.
  3. The landlord’s decision to send 2 block letters in January 2023, regarding late night use of washing machines, was reasonable considering the nature of the reports received. When further reports were received, it spoke directly to the resident. This was, again, reasonable to make her aware of the reports and give her the opportunity to resolve the issues.
  4. The landlord told residents they should only use their washing machines between 8am and 9pm. While sensible of the landlord to give guidance on when washing machines should be used, this may not have always been possible for some residents due to work or other commitments. In this case, the resident said she worked late, which meant it was difficult for her to adhere to these times. This would have been challenging for her considering she had 3 children. She told the landlord that this resulted in her having to go to a family member’s house to do her washing which was inconvenient. In light of this, it would have been sensible for the landlord to consider whether there was any other support or advice it could give the resident with this situation.
  5. In recent contact with this Service, the landlord said it considered mediation and suggesting sound proofing pads to the resident, but had deemed these to be unnecessary and inappropriate. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that these were considered at the time and in light of the concerns raised by the resident, it may have been appropriate to suggest one or both of these solutions. Its failure to do so amounts to service failure and an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for such findings.
  6. A further order has been made for the landlord to review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints – time to be heard; and self-assess against the recommendations made, to identify any improvements it can make in its handling of noise reports that fall below the ASB threshold.
  7. The resident said she felt harassed and discriminated against by the landlord. The Ombudsman acknowledges that it can be upsetting for residents to receive contact from their landlord about reports of noise. However, it is important that landlords do make contact and speak with residents in these circumstances. This is in order to resolve the issues at the earliest opportunity and without more formal recourse.
  8. In this case, the landlord reassured the resident that the first 2 letters were general letters and not directly targeted at her, which was sensible. It responded to her concerns as part of its complaint responses and, while it said there was no evidence she had been harassed or discriminated against, it apologised that she felt this way. This showed that it took her concerns seriously and acknowledged her feelings on this matter.

Decision not to replace the resident’s front door

  1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the front door as per the terms of the tenancy agreement. This says it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the front door. It is reasonable that the landlord would not replace the door where it can complete repairs to resolve any issues. If the door is deemed irreparable, then it would be the landlord’s responsibility to replace it.
  2. In this case, the landlord attended on multiple occasions to carry out repairs in  response to the resident’s concerns about the front door. When she suggested that the door required replacement, the landlord sought feedback from its contractor. The landlord’s contractor confirmed on more than one occasion that the door did not require replacement and was in full working order. While disappointing for the resident, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its contractor and not replace the door in these circumstances.
  3. When the resident raised this issue as part of her complaint, the landlord explained its position, stating that it could not justify the cost of replacing the door, when a replacement was not required. This was a reasonable explanation as the landlord is a local authority and so must be mindful of how it uses public money, and ensure that it does not incur costs unnecessarily.
  4. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to replace the front door.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of noise reports about the resident.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to replace the resident’s front door.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for its handling of noise reports about her. Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service, within 4 weeks.
  2. Within 12 weeks, the landlord is ordered to review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints – time to be heard (Spotlight on: Noise Complaints -October 2022), and self-assess against the recommendations made, to identify any improvements it can make in its handling of noise reports that fall below the ASB threshold. Evidence of compliance to be provided, to this Service, within 12 weeks.