London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202305870)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305870

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 May 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 handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of noise nuisance from a communal bin store.
   2. Request for a transfer to another property.
   3. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a ground floor flat.
3. Between May 2022 and July 2022, the resident’s MP asked the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of noise disturbance coming from the communal bin store that was adjacent to his property.
4. The resident explained that the bedroom and living room wall at his property ran adjacent to the communal bin store. He said that for the last 8 years he had told the landlord that he had been disturbed 24 hours a day by the opening and closing of the communal bin doors, and the sound of residents and operatives disposing of their waste. The resident said that he would like assistance in transferring to another property because of the impact from the noise nuisance.
5. On 1 August 2022 a member of the landlord’s staff visited the resident’s property. The resident said that he hoped the landlord would take action following it witnessing the noise pollution he was experiencing from the communal bin store.
6. On 9 August 2022 the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in it responding to him about the noise from the communal bin store. It said it would get a quote to install soundproofing within the area of the bin store. Between September 2022 and October 2022 the resident and his MP requested an update from the landlord about the works. The resident also asked for the landlord to update him on his request to be transferred to another property.
7. On 17 February 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of his reports of noise nuisance coming from the communal bin store.
8. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 February 2023. The landlord apologised that its contractor had not carried out the repair to the communal bin store. It said this was because it was no longer using the contractor it had raised the works for. It raised a new repair for the soundproofing works of the communal bin store and said it would review any compensation for the resident once it had completed the repair.
9. Between 6 April 2023 and 12 April 2023 the landlord’s maintenance team carried out the sound proofing works to the communal bin store. The resident complained to the landlord during this time that the materials used did not provide sufficient soundproofing and so did not resolve his issue. On 10 May 2023 the resident requested the landlord escalate his complaint.
10. On 1 August 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. It apologised for its delay in providing its response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it had completed the soundproofing works of the communal bin store and that it would not reattend the repair. The landlord advised the resident that if he wished to move to another property he could look into a mutual exchange. It awarded the resident £550 compensation broken down for the following:
    1. £70 for its delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response.
    2. £200 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.
    3. £30 for the resident’s time and effort in making his reports.
    4. £250 as a goodwill gesture.
11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He brought his complaint to the Ombudsman stating he wanted the landlord to resolve the noise pollution caused by the communal bin store. He also wanted the landlord to assist him in being rehoused.

 

 

Assessment and findings

12. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
13. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failure on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failure did lead to an adverse effect, the Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and to have ‘learned from outcomes.

Scope of Investigation

14. Section 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident had been reporting the noise nuisance coming from the communal bin store since 2019. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident when he has said that this has had a strong negative impact on his wellbeing and mental health over this period. However there is a difference between requesting a service and raising a formal complaint to the landlord and there is no evidence that the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord until February 2023. The Ombudsman has therefore, in accordance with section 42(c) of the Scheme considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the communal bin store between February 2022 (which is 12 months before the formal complaint) to the landlord’s final response on 1 August 2023.

Reports of noise nuisance from a communal bin store.

15. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for maintaining communal entrance ways, halls, stairways, and other communal areas, including estate grounds. The landlord categorises and responds to its repairs as follows:
    1. Emergency – This is where a repair causes an immediate danger to residents. It will respond within 24 hours.
    2. Routine – These will be completed in an average time of 25 calendar days.

 

 

 

16. In May 2022, the resident’s MP asked the landlord to address the resident’s continued disturbance from the bin store that shared a wall with his bedroom and living room at the property. On 7 June 2022 the landlord said that it had installed a new hinge on the bin store door. The information provided by the landlord was incorrect as these repairs had been carried out to a different bin store. The Ombudsman understands that this miscommunication exacerbated the significant distress and inconvenience already caused to the resident by the noise. This is evidence of poor communication by the landlord.
17. On 7 June 2022 the landlord told the resident’s MP that it would raise a repair for the communal bin store. On 1 July 2022 the resident’s MP asked the landlord for an update on what it had done to address the noise from the communal bin store. On 6 July 2022 the landlord told the resident that it could not do anything about the noise from the bin store. Records reviewed by the Ombudsman evidence that the landlord carried out no action to address the repair during this period. This was not an appropriate response. The landlord should have carried out an inspection of the noise nuisance coming from the bin store impacting the resident’s property to confirm if anything could be done to reduce noise such as fitting noise proofing. This should have been carried out as a routine repair in line with its repairs policy, as set out above. This is evidence of poor communication and poor handling of its repairs processes.
18. On 14 July 2022 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord again and requested it respond to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the communal bin store. On 1 August 2022 the landlord sent a representative to inspect the noise. On 9 August 2022 the landlord agreed to install sound proofing within the bin store. It was appropriate that the landlord agreed to soundproof the bin store. However the landlord should have provided the resident with a timescale of when this repair would be completed. The Ombudsman would consider this to have been a routine repair, and it should have completed these works within 28 days, in line with best practice.
19. Between September 2022 and 21 March 2023 the resident and his MP made multiple requests for the landlord to carry out the soundproofing repairs to the communal bin store. On 30 March 2023 the landlord said the delay in the repair had been caused because it had stopped using the contractor who it had originally requested to carry out the soundproofing to the bin store. This was not appropriate. The landlord is responsible for managing its contractors and the repairs raised for its properties. It should have given the works to another suitable contractor when it changed contractors. This is evidence of poor communication, poor handling of its records and poor handling of its repairs processes.

 

20. On 30 March 2023 the landlord said its own repairs operatives would carry out the sound proofing to the communal bin store and scheduled for the works to be completed on 17 April 2023. This update was appropriate because it told the resident when it would complete the works.
21. The landlord carried out the sound proofing works to the communal bin store between 6 April 2023 and 12 April 2023. This was 246 days after it had agreed to soundproof the bin store. It was also 329 days after the resident’s MP had asked the landlord to address the noise nuisance. The Ombudsman is also aware that these delays have exacerbated the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is because the resident has explained that he had been wanting the landlord to address this issue for a number of years before this. The delay in carrying out the works was unreasonable and is evidence of poor communication and poor handling of repairs.
22. On 15 April 2023, the resident told the landlord that the soundproofing it completed was insufficient. He said its operatives had used the incorrect materials and there were gaps across the wall where soundproofing should have been. He explained that as a result there is no improvement in the noise coming from the communal bin store.
23. On 1 August 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. It said that it had carried out the works to the communal bin store and would not reattend. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have carried out a post inspection of the works. It should then have responded to the resident’s concerns and communicated with him in seeking a way to resolve the noise. The Ombudsman will make an order that the completes an independent survey to address the sound proofing of the communal bin store. The Ombudsman will also make recommendations that if this does not work, then the landlord should carry out an investigation into the levels of noise nuisance coming from the use of the communal bin store, impacting the resident’s property. It should consider monitoring the levels of noise through the use of sound monitoring equipment.
24. The Ombudsman will also make recommendation that the landlord considers a review to identify if there is an alternative location for the building’s communal bin store to be housed. This is a decision for the landlord, but the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for the landlord to consider this. The landlord should share its findings with all affected residents and consult residents on any proposals to change the bin store location. 

 

25. For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the communal bin store. This includes the significant delays, poor workmanship, and poor communication.
26. In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint it awarded the resident £480 compensation, which it applied to the resident’s rent account. The landlord’s decision to apply this to the resident’s rent account was in line with its compensation policy which states that where an account is in arrears, it will offset any compensation towards this debt. This amount of £480 is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. This reflects that the resident suffered distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays and its failure to fully address the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the communal bin store. Examples of this level of compensation in the guidance include where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident but resulted in no permanent impact. For these reasons, the Ombudsman will not make a further award of compensation for this aspect of the complaint.

The resident’s request for a transfer to another property.

27. The landlord’s allocations policy states that when a resident demonstrates a desire to move to another property it will present them with appropriate options to suit their needs.
28. On 1 July 2022 the resident’s MP told the landlord that if it was unable to resolve the noise nuisance coming from the bin store, then the resident wanted to be transferred to another property. On 5 August 2022 the resident told the landlord that it had previously looked into assisting him to transfer to another property. He said the move did not happen because its housing officer who had been assisting him, left before his application had been submitted. The resident asked the landlord to assist him again to transfer to another property. On 9 August 2022 the landlord advised the resident that he would need to complete a new application if he wished to transfer to another property. It provided him with the details for how he could do this. This advice by the landlord was reasonable at that time. It was appropriate that it directed the resident and explained how he could move to another property, in line with its allocations policy.
29. In the landlord’s final response on 1 August 2023, it explained to the resident that he should look into the mutual exchange scheme if he still wanted to transfer to another property. This was a reasonable response. This is because landlords will generally only agree to move residents in exceptional circumstances such as if their current property is unsuitable for them due to medical needs or if it is too small for their household, meaning they are overcrowded. Noise nuisance would not be considered an exceptional circumstance in this case. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to set out how the resident could apply to move to another property in his current circumstances. This was also in line with its allocations policy as set out above.
30. If the resident considers that they need to be rehoused for other reasons, aside from the noise nuisance, he can make a formal request for rehousing to the landlord. The landlord would be expected to consider the resident’s request and respond in line with its housing allocations policy. The resident may also wish to consider his other options for rehousing such as a mutual exchange as explained by the landlord who has already provided information to the resident on his rehousing options.
31. For the reasons described above the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to transfer to another property.

The associated complaint.

32. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s stage one complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its written response at stage one within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. It will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint, at either stage. If in the exceptional circumstance that it requires an extension, it will write to the resident to explain this within 10 working days and agree a timescale to provide its response.
33. The landlord’s complaints policy also states that once it has agreed a resolution with a resident, it will monitor all actions of the complaint until they are complete.
34. On 17 February 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of the noise nuisance coming from the communal bin store. The resident said that the landlord had not carried out the soundproofing works it had agreed to complete. On 20 February 2023 the landlord provided its stage one written complaint response to the resident. This was one working day later. This was reasonable because it provided its response to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy as set out above.
35. On 26 May 2023, the resident told the landlord that he wanted it to escalate his complaint. He said this was because the matters of his complaint remained unresolved. This included that the resident was dissatisfied with the standard of works carried out to the communal bin store. He also requested the landlord to transfer him to another property.
36. On 1 August 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 written complaint response. This was 46 working days later. This was not appropriate. The resident should have received the landlord’s final response within 20 working days of it escalating his complaint. This is evidence of poor complaint handling and poor communication by the landlord.
37. The delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 response is evidence of a failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s final complaint response, which included an apology and an award of £70 compensation in recognition of its delay in the handling of the resident’s complaint to be both a reasonable and proportionate response to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, examples of when this level of compensation is appropriate include where there was a minor failure, or short delay which did not significantly affect the overall outcome of the complaint.
38. There was no permanent impact from the failings in complaint handling as the landlord ultimately responded to the complaint and offered compensation. Therefore, the landlord’s actions within its final response represent reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is not required to do anything further in respect of its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a communal bin store.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer to another property.
40. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves concerns about its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

41. The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing within 28 days of the issue of this report. The apology is to be in line with this service’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration in which it expresses a sincere regret for its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the communal bin store.
42. The landlord is to pay the resident the £550 it awarded the resident in its stage 2 complaint response within 28 days of this report.
43. The landlord is to arrange for an independent survey to be carried out by a soundproofing specialist to inspect the communal bin store, as well as the resident’s property within 28 days of this report. If follow on works are identified by the inspection, these works are to then be carried out within a further 4 weeks. The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with this order.

Recommendations

44. The landlord should arrange for a survey to consider if the communal bin store can be moved to another site location if the soundproofing works remain unsuccessful. The landlord should share the findings of its survey with the resident and other residents affected. The landlord should carry out a consultation with residents concerning any proposed change to the location of the bin store. Any follow-on works should then be carried out within a reasonable timescale in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
45. If the soundproofing does not work, the landlord should communicate with the resident and arrange to install monitoring equipment to investigate the level of noise nuisance impacting the resident’s property. Any follow-on works identified as necessary following the monitoring should then be carried out within a reasonable timescale in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.