Westminster City Council (202340118)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202340118
Westminster City Council
29 August 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- the resident’s reports of noise and noise transference.
- the resident’s complaint.
Background
- The resident is the leaseholder of a 1-bedroom flat where she has lived since January 2016. The landlord is a Local Authority. The landlord said it does not hold any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
- The resident informed the landlord that noise from 2 neighbouring properties was causing her a disturbance. The noise included talking, walking around, light switches clicking and banging on the adjoining wall between the bedrooms. The resident also reported one neighbour for shouting abusive comments towards her.
- On 17 October 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that she was unhappy because:
- noise from 2 neighbouring properties was affecting her and she felt the landlord had failed to act, including evicting her neighbour
- she had not received a copy of a surveyor’s report from 9 June 2023
- the landlord had not actioned the recommendations made by a surveyor on 9 June 2023, which the resident said included:
- changing the light switches in the neighbour’s property
- changing the pull cord in the bathroom in the neighbour’s property
- consider replacing laminate flooring in the neighbour’s property with carpet to reduce noise
- the landlord had failed to respond to several of her requests for updates
- As a resolution the resident requested that the landlord:
- complete the recommended works to the neighbour’s property
- consider installation of sound insulation to the properties
- consider the impact the noise was having on her quality of life and well being
- compensate the resident for the distress caused because of the landlord’s delays
- The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 15 November 2023 in which it said:
- it would only consider eviction where there was clear evidence that there was a breach of tenancy and it was not appropriate in this case
- it had provided the resident with the noise app to capture evidence of the noise
- it had listened to the recordings the resident had made and the reported noise was insufficient to take tenancy enforcement action against her neighbour
- it had offered mediation as a resolution
- it had visited the neighbour on 7 August 2023 to discuss the resident’s concerns
- it had identified a number of actions as follows:
- it would replace the light switches
- it would repair the flooring
- it would update the resident once it had completed the works
- the landlord had provided the resident with advice on what she could do to improve the soundproofing in her property
- it had tried to keep in regular contact with the resident
- it would not install sound insulation to the resident’s property but if she wished to pay for this herself then as the leaseholder, she could, providing she obtained the relevant permission beforehand
- it accepted it had delayed in its stage 1 response, it apologised and offered £20 compensation for the delay
- The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 4 December 2023. She was unhappy because:
- the landlord had delayed providing its stage 1 response and asked for a full explanation
- the landlord refused to install sound insulation to her property and she asked it to reconsider its decision
- the landlord delayed completing the recommended works to the neighbour’s property
- noise from the neighbouring properties continued to affect her, she specifically referred to an incident on 27 November 2023
- the landlord had not arranged the simultaneous visits to her and her neighbour’s home so that it could understand the level of noise transference between the properties
- the landlord had failed to respond to her emails and contacts on numerous occasions
- the amount of compensation offered at stage 1 did not reflect the inconvenience caused
- The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 January 2023 in which it said:
The response to the stage 1 complaint
- it apologised for the delay in responding at stage 1
- it explained it had been waiting on information in relation to actions and discussions with the resident’s neighbour which had caused the delay
The sound insulation
- it had obtained quotes for sound insulation but this had been too expensive
- the neighbour had sought legal advice and had disputed some of the noise allegations, stating they were not accurate
- it had temporarily halted sound insulation enquiries
- it was looking to obtain independent verification of the noise
Action since stage 1 complaint response
- it would work with the neighbour to change the light switches and repair the flooring
- it had paused these works until it had addressed the neighbour’s legal matters
- it had informed the resident of this in its communication dated 11 December 2023
- it had informed the resident that it would carry out the joint inspection in January 2024
Further incident with the neighbour on 27 November 2023
- it had updated its records and would address this with the neighbour
- it provided contact details of the noise team and encouraged the resident to contact this service
Simultaneous visits
- it had visited both properties on 5 January 2024 to assess the noise
- it apologised for the delay in organising the visit
- it explained it needed to respond to the neighbour’s enquiry before arranging the visit
- it accepted it took longer than it should and it did not update the resident
The landlord should have explored eviction sooner
- it noted this was the desired outcome for the resident
- it explained that possession was the last resort and it needed to explore all other avenues first
- the reported noise may not align with the criteria for eviction
Mediation
- it noted the resident did not consider mediation to be suitable in this case
- it confirmed that the offer of mediation would remain open to the resident
The outcome of the visit on 5 January 2024
- it said that all 3 officers witnessed the noise transference
- it said the witnessed noise was not excessive, but included:
- clicks from light switches
- toilet flushing
- raised voices
- knocks on shared walls
- slight creak of floorboards
- in respect of works to the neighbour’s property, the landlord agreed it would:
- replace all light switches with ones producing softer clicks
- replace the bathroom light pull cord with one emitting a softer click
- fit an acoustic board to the neighbour’s wall which adjoined the resident’s bedroom
- review the floorboards again after the landlord fitted the acoustic board
- raise a works order and arrange to inspect the neighbour’s property in preparation for the works
- update the resident once it had a start date for the works
- it agreed to reach out to the resident’s acoustic specialist to obtain their views
- it confirmed the resident could explore fitting an acoustic board in her own property, subject to the terms of her lease and consent from the council
Compensation
- it awarded a total of £490 compensation, broken down as follows:
- £20 for the delay in sending the stage 1 response
- £300 for the delay in progressing actions from stage 1 and poor communication
- £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused
- £70 for complaint handling at stage 2, late response and the resident having to pursue the complaint
- In March 2024 the resident obtained her own quote to install sound insulation at her property. The quote was £1575 plus an additional £965 for extra works which included plastering, electrical alterations and rubbish clearance, plus VAT. She asked the landlord if it would pay for this as part of her compensation from stage 2 of her complaint, which she had not yet received. The landlord reviewed its stage 2 response and agreed to fund the works as a one off. The landlord provided a revised stage 2 response on 23 April 2024 in which it said:
- it agreed to offer an additional compensation payment of £1950 to enable the resident to proceed with the works
- it agreed to reimburse the resident the remainder of the costs following the completion of the works
- if the works did not meet the resident’s expectations in relation to the noise reduction the landlord would not fund any further works to the resident’s property
- The resident has informed this service that, as an outcome, she would like the landlord to complete the works to her neighbour’s property as promised in its complaint responses. She would also like the landlord to reconsider the amount of compensation awarded for the delays she experienced in dealing with these issues.
Assessment and findings
Scope of the investigation
- The resident said the issues at her property have had a significant impact on her mental well-being. She has sought medical help for this and been referred to talking therapies. When a resident says they have been caused injury to their health and well-being, as in this case, the courts often have the benefit of a medicolegal report. This will often set out the cause of any injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial. In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions on the cause of the resident’s health conditions, based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim or to legal liability insurers. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused.
Record Keeping
- The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep a robust record 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.
- It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to either create or maintain adequate records. For example, the Ombudsman has not been provided with copies of the inspection reports from 9 June 2023, 7 August 2023 and 5 January 2024. The landlord’s record-keeping has affected this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about noise and noise transference
- The Ombudsman acknowledges that the situation has been distressing to the resident. However, it is important to note it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the noise occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
- It is perhaps convenient to note here that not all noise will be something a landlord is able to act on. The definition of noise nuisance is an unreasonable use of one property, which affects the use and enjoyment of those occupying another property. Put simply, if the use of the neighbour’s homes was normal and reasonable use, the landlord would not be able to take tenancy and enforcement action against them. Nor would it be responsible to upgrade the premises. Before making this decision, however, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to investigate the reports made.
- When dealing with reports of noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB) the Ombudsman expects landlords to consider its obligations under the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, consumer standards and best practice. The Ombudsman expects landlords to:
- maintain regular communication with the complainant
- carry out clear action planning where relevant
- maintain good record keeping
- evidence good partnership working
- The landlord deals with reports of noise under its ASB policy. The policy states the landlord will carry out the following actions when it receives a new report of ASB:
- assess whether the report meets the definition of ASB
- the landlord’s policy states that general household noise that arises from normal day to day activities does not meet the definition of ASB
- if the report is about genuine ASB the landlord must:
- assess the priority of the reported incident and refer immediately to the ASB team if there is a risk of danger to the resident or someone else
- complete a risk assessment
- log the case and advise the resident that the landlord’s specialist ASB team will contact them within 48 hours to discuss next steps
- if the report is about low-level noise transference between properties the landlord must:
- encourage the resident to speak to their neighbour or post a ‘Dear neighbour card’ to the neighbour, which the landlord can provide
- complete a risk assessment
- inform the resident that it would not take any further action at that stage
- assess whether the report meets the definition of ASB
- The resident reported noise from the properties to the side and above her own. For the purpose of this report, we shall refer to these as property A and property B. The landlord said it received an email from the resident on 14 May 2023 reporting that noise from property A was disturbing her. The landlord said it attempted to visit the resident at home on 18 May 2023 to discuss her report, whilst its officer was in the area, but the resident was not in at the time of the visit. While this was a delay of 2 days, the Ombudsman would not consider this to be significant.
- The landlord telephoned the resident on 22 May 2023 to obtain further details from her. The resident said she had approached the neighbour from property A to ask them to keep the noise down and the neighbour’s partner had sworn at her and banged on the adjoining wall. She also said she could hear music from property A. During the call, the resident informed the landlord that she had also made a note of the number of times the neighbour had gone to the bathroom.
- There is evidence that the landlord carried out the following actions after receiving the resident’s reports of noise and until it closed the ASB case:
- logged a new ASB case
- sent an acknowledgement letter to the resident setting out agreed actions
- completed a risk assessment to identify the level of risk
- asked the resident to use the noise app to record the noise
- advised the resident to contact the council’s noise team
- advised the resident to report any verbal abuse to the police
- spoke to the neighbour from property A about the resident’s reports
- listened to the resident’s noise app recordings and updated the resident on what it found
- agreed to carry out door–knocking in the building to find out if the noise was affecting anyone else
- offered mediation to both parties
- maintained good communication with the resident whilst the case was open
- While the ASB case was open the landlord tried to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining that it did not consider day to day living noise as ASB. It told the resident that it would not investigate this type of noise unless it could identify statutory noise nuisance. The above actions were all appropriate as they were consistent with good practice and the landlord’s ASB policy.
- On 30 May 2023 the ASB officer emailed the landlord’s leasehold department. The officer informed it of the resident’s reports and asked it to carry out an inspection to look into the issues around insulation between the properties.
- The landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property on 9 June 2023. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the surveyor’s report. This is a failure by the landlord. The resident said the surveyor had told her there were no structural issues with the property and the surveyor made the following observations and recommendations:
- the ‘sandpaper’ noise reported by the resident may have been the neighbour’s headboard against the adjoining wall
- the constant creaking noise may have been due to the neighbour’s bed or floorboards
- the landlord could consider changing the light switches in property A to minimise the noise
- the landlord could consider replacing the laminate flooring in property A with carpet to reduce the noise
- the landlord should arrange an inspection of property A
- The resident contacted the landlord on 21 June 2023 to request an update on what steps the landlord proposed to take following the inspection on 9 June 2023. The landlord attempted to speak to the resident on 23 June 2023. There was no answer, so the landlord left a message to say that its leasehold department was reviewing the surveyor’s report from 9 June 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord considered the recommendations following the inspection in order to decide upon what action it needed to take, if any.
- On 26 June 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect property A following the recommendations made by the surveyor on 9 June 2023. It confirmed to the resident that, whilst the landlord would not fund the insulation to the resident’s property, it would check if its contractor would be willing to provide the resident with a quote for this work. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
- On 25 July 2023 the landlord confirmed it had listened to the noise recordings the resident had submitted. The landlord informed the resident it had not been able to identify any noise. During this conversation, the resident informed the landlord that another member of its staff had told her that it would serve the neighbour with a notice seeking possession. The landlord explained to the resident that the noise she was reporting was day to day noise and it would not serve a notice in these circumstances. The Ombudsman would remind the landlord that whilst it is good practice to keep a resident updated whilst an ASB case is open, it is important that it does not raise expectations on action it might take. Raising expectations in ASB cases can later result in the resident feeling that the landlord has not taken the matter seriously and can result in the resident losing faith in the landlord.
- On 27 July 2023 the landlord informed the resident that a surveyor would visit property A on 7 August 2023. It also said it was still trying to find a contractor to provide the resident with a quote for sound insulation works to her property. The landlord explained again that as the resident was a leaseholder the landlord would not fund this work.
- On 7 August 2023 the landlord inspected property A. The landlord’s records show that the neighbour denied making excessive noise and was not happy about having to have the recommended works completed in her property. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the report from this visit. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to comment on the exact details of the visit or what the landlord discussed and agreed with the neighbour. This is a record-keeping failure by the landlord.
- The landlord closed its ASB case on 8 September 2023. It told the resident the reason it had closed the case was because there was no evidence of noise nuisance occurring. It confirmed the landlord was still investigating the resident’s enquiry about sound insulation. The landlord confirmed its decision in writing to the resident on the same date. This was appropriate as it was consistent with good practice and the landlord’s policy.
- On 10 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request an update following its inspection of property A. Within her email the resident also referred to a squeaky floorboard in property B, which is directly above her property. She said the neighbour walking around the flat above hers was causing her a disturbance and impacting on her sleep.
- The resident raised her initial complaint on 17 October 2023 in which she said she had not received a response from the landlord to her emails. The records show that between 11 August 2023 and 10 October 2023, the resident emailed the landlord on 5 separate occasions requesting an update. Whilst it was not appropriate for the landlord to share a copy of the inspection report for property A with the resident, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to update the resident on what it had identified during the inspection and what it proposed to do to resolve the issues. The only contact from the landlord during this time was its ASB case closure letter which it sent on 8 September 2023. This was a failure by the landlord and is likely to have added to the resident’s frustration.
- On 11 December 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to inform her that the neighbour from property A had disputed 3 reports of noise made by the resident, stating that they had not been at home. The landlord confirmed that the neighbour had agreed to allow it access to the property so that it could assess what work it could carry out to reduce the noise. The landlord said it would arrange a joint inspection to assess the noise transference between the 3 properties. The landlord said it hoped to conduct the visit the following week, but it did not confirm a date when the visit would take place. It was appropriate of the landlord to keep the resident updated on the neighbour’s responses to her reports. It was also appropriate that the landlord arranged to carry out a visit to all 3 properties to enable it to fully understand the noise the resident was reporting.
- On 2 January 2024 the landlord contacted the resident and apologised that it had not managed to arrange the visit before the Christmas period. It told the resident that it was committed to carrying out the works to the light switches and flooring and it would arrange access as soon as it could. It also said it reserved the right to escalate the matter to legal action if the neighbour did not cooperate.
- The landlord visited both the resident and her neighbours on 5 January 2024 to assess the noise transference between the properties. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the landlord’s report from this visit. However, the landlord’s records show that it did attend on this date and carried out tests between the 3 properties to assess the noise transference.
- With regards to property A, the landlord confirmed that it could hear taps on the bedroom walls, loud talking and use of light switches between the properties, although the landlord noted the noise was not particularly loud. The landlord said that although the noise was audible it did not consider it to be excessive. The landlord noted that the resident may have become sensitive to noise and that the noise was likely to be louder during the night. The landlord said it would propose new light switches throughout the neighbour’s property and would fit an acoustic board to the adjoining wall in the neighbour’s bedroom.
- The landlord also visited property B on the same date to assess the level of noise transference. The landlord walked around property B, whilst another officer stayed in the resident’s property. The landlord noted that it could not hear any noise coming from property B. The landlord said that it informed the resident it was unlikely to carry out any work to the floor in property B because it had not witnessed noise which it would consider to be excessive. The Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord for this. The landlord inspected the area, carried out testing, identified no noise transference into the resident’s property and it made a decision it was entitled to make.
- The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 January 2024 in which it said it would replace the light switches and install an acoustic board in property A. It also said it would review the floorboards in property A again after it had fitted the acoustic board to establish if the board had helped to reduce the noise transference.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 30 January 2024 stating that she accepted the landlord’s offer of £490 compensation.
- On 16 February 2024 the resident chased the landlord for an update on the works to property A. The landlord informed the resident that it was still hoping to carry out the identified works to property A. However, it also informed the resident that it could not contractually force the neighbour to accept the works and therefore if the neighbour continued to refuse access the landlord could not take any further action. While the resident was unhappy with this response, this was correct. There is no evidence to show that the light switches in the neighbour’s property were damaged. The Ombudsman would consider such works to be improvements and not repairs. The landlord is not obliged to offer such improvements and the neighbour is not obliged to accept them. This is not work that the Ombudsman would have ordered the landlord to undertake.
- The landlord agreed to speak to its surveyor to establish if it could install the acoustic board in the resident’s property instead of property A, if the neighbour refused to allow the landlord access. On 7 March 2024 the landlord informed the resident that it was unable to install the acoustic board in her flat as it was a leasehold property. The landlord said it would continue to try and complete the works in property A.
- Although the Ombudsman understands that the landlord was trying to reach a suitable outcome for the resident, it had informed her on 16 February 2024 that it had no obligation to carry out these works and it could not force the neighbour to accept them. The landlord agreed to complete the work in property A, which resulted in the landlord raising the resident’s expectations again. The landlord could have been clearer that its position remained final.
- On 20 March 2024, the resident sent a quotation she had obtained herself for sound insulation works to her property. She asked the landlord to pay for these works as part of its compensation at stage 2. The landlord agreed and the contractor completed the works in May 2024. The resident said that the insulation works had improved some of the noise transference, but she could still hear the neighbour using the light switches in property A. She informed the landlord of this on 17 May 2024 and requested that it proceed with replacing the neighbour’s light switches as soon as possible.
- The landlord has said it has raised works orders for replacement of the light switches and has tried to complete the works. However, it has not been able to gain access to the neighbour’s property. The resident has continued to chase the landlord in relation to these works.
Summary and conclusions on the handling of the resident’s reports of noise and noise transference
- The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted appropriately in its investigation of the alleged noise nuisance. The landlord currently deals with reports of noise under its ASB policy. However, it has provided evidence of its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints. This is appropriate as it demonstrates a commitment by the landlord on how it will try to mitigate noise in its properties and how it intends to deal with reports of noise in the future.
- With regards to the landlord’s handling of the reports of noise transference, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord made promises to the resident that it could not keep. The works it agreed to carry out in property A were improvements and not repairs. As outlined above, the landlord was not obliged to carry out these works and the neighbour was not obliged to accept them. By telling the resident it would carry out these works, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations which was not appropriate. The landlord should have identified that it was not obliged to carry out these works sooner and should have informed the resident of its decision.
- The landlord acknowledged some of its failures in its stage 2 complaint response and offered compensation to the resident. This included:
- the landlord’s delay in progressing the actions it had agreed at stage 1
- the landlord’s poor communication with the resident
- the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident
- The Ombudsman would consider the identified failings as maladministration. However, following a request from the resident, the landlord reviewed its stage 2 response and increased its compensation amount significantly to pay for the sound insulation works to the resident’s property. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord went beyond what we would have expected it to do by paying for these works.
- The Ombudsman has therefore reached the decision that although there were failings in the landlord’s actions, it has done more than it was required to in order to put things right. We have therefore made a determination of reasonable redress in respect of this aspect of the complaint.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
- The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days of being made and provide its response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge escalation of the complaint within 2 working days and provide its response within 20 working days.
- The landlord’s complaint policy further states that if the landlord requires additional time to complete its investigation, it should send a holding response to the resident explaining the reason for the delay and when the resident should receive a full response.
- The resident submitted her initial complaint on 17 October 2023. Paragraph 4.1 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022) states that landlords must log and acknowledge all complaints at stage 1 within 5 days of receipt. There is no evidence that the landlord did this in this case. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
- The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 15 November 2023 which was 22 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord ought to have communicated any delay in providing its response to the resident. There is no evidence that it did so. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or with the Code.
- The resident’s complaint was, in the main, in relation to property A. However, she also referred to property B within her initial complaint. Paragraph 5.6 of the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord did not refer to property B in its complaint response. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the Code.
- The landlord accepted that it had delayed in providing the resident with the stage 1 response. It apologised for the service failure and offered the resident £20 compensation.
- The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 4 December 2023. The resident said the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 December 2023 and said it would respond by 4 January 2024.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 January 2024 explaining that it needed additional time to complete its investigation and would provide a formal response by 25 January 2024. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord informed the resident of the delay, this was 23 working days after it had acknowledged the escalation. This was a failure by the landlord.
- The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 January 2024. This was 1 day after the agreed extension. The Ombudsman appreciates that this would have caused the resident further frustration but does not consider this to be a significant delay.
- In its stage 2 response the landlord accepted that there had been failures in its complaint handling at both stages. It awarded compensation of £490, £90 of which was for complaint handling.
- In March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and said she had not received the compensation awarded at stage 2. She asked the landlord to consider increasing its compensation to pay for sound insulation to her property. On 5 April 2024 the landlord agreed to review its stage 2 response to take into account the resident’s request.
- On 23 April 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident with the outcome of its stage 2 review in which it agreed to fund the sound insulation works to her property as additional compensation for her complaint. This was a total of £3,048 inclusive of VAT. It agreed to pay the resident £1942 in advance of the works so that the resident could commence with the works. It agreed to reimburse the resident with the remainder of the costs following completion of the works.
- Between 29 April 2024 and 4 June 2024 the resident said it chased the landlord several times for the payment of £1,942 and the compensation of £490 awarded at stage 2. On 6 June 2024 the landlord notified the resident that it would make the payment into her bank account within 3 days. This was 3 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response. This was not appropriate.
- The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the landlord has not reimbursed her for the additional work which the contractor had outlined on the quote, which included plastering, electrical alterations and rubbish clearance.
- The Ombudsman would not normally have ordered the landlord to reimburse the resident for the sound insulation works carried out at her property. However, as the landlord agreed to pay for this in its stage 2 review it is important that it pays the resident what it has promised. The balance outstanding is £1106 inclusive of VAT.
- Compensation is a means of offering redress to recognise and acknowledge the impact on someone for something which has gone wrong. Therefore, the landlord must ensure that the process of providing compensation does not give cause for further complaints.
- In summary, the Ombudsman has found that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint in that:
- it failed to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint
- it unreasonably delayed in responding at stage 1 of the complaint procedure
- it unreasonably delayed in requesting an extension to stage 2
- it unreasonably delayed in paying the compensation it had promised to the resident
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise and noise transference.
- 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
- The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
- pay the resident £200 compensation in addition to that offered via the complaint procedure (£490) (£690 in total). The additional compensation is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay in paying the resident the compensation awarded at stage 2
- reimburse the resident in the sum of £1106 for the additional costs outlined on the quote for sound insulation works at the resident’s property as agreed at the landlord’s stage 2 review. It agreed to pay this in its second stage 2 response and must now pay this
- The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.