Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202102927)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102927

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

30 November 2023

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 response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance due to poor sound insulation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy for a one bedroomed-flat, which started on 11 May 2015.
The resident has shared that he is vulnerable and has mental ill health. The landlord was provided with information that he had a support worker when he took on the tenancy, however it did not record the details of his mental health conditions.
Noise travels through the air and through impact. The transfer of noise between properties can be mitigated by the use of sound insulation. Building regulations regarding ‘resistance to the passage of sound’ have evolved over time, and under the Building Act (1984) buildings must meet the standards that were in place when they were built or converted.
In October 2022, the Housing Ombudsman issued a spotlight report on noise. Many of the findings and recommendations are relevant to this case, including the following details:
1. On the subject of “household noise” being treated as anti-social behaviour (ASB), the Ombudsman described it as “a fundamental unfairness… it is unfair to both the resident making the complaint and the resident being complained about”;
2. Landlords are encouraged to address the underlying issue of noise transference;
3. Lack of access to noise monitoring equipment presents a barrier to effective investigation of noise complaints by landlord staff;
4. The Ombudsman emphasised the importance of respect and of the tone of communications from a landlord;
5. The report details the legislation and standards currently regulating noise within homes. These include the government’s Noise Exposure Hierarchy, part E of the Building Regulations (2003), the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, and the Decent Homes Standard;
6. Although the Ombudsman accepts that landlords are not responsible for soundproofing homes above the standards applicable at the time of building, it needs to be recognised that actions taken to prevent and/ or mitigate for the typical sources of noise nuisance will, in the long run, be more cost-efficient than handling the subsequent noise nuisance report. Ultimately, and importantly, this will provide a better quality of service to its residents.
The landlord is a local authority, and as such its environmental health team has statutory powers regarding noise nuisance, and its building control team is responsible for ensuring building standards are met.
Common law sets out the resident’s right to quiet enjoyment of his home. This does not mean his flat must be ‘quiet’, instead it means the landlord must ensure he is able to occupy it without undue disruption, which can be caused both by its actions and its failure to take action.
The Equality Act (2010) specifies a list of protected characteristics, which include long–term mental health conditions. The landlord must ensure it does not discriminate against the resident, which means it must not put him at a disadvantage by failing to consider his individual needs in relation to any protected characteristics, when assessing its response to matters he raises in relation to his tenancy. The landlord is required to take appropriate steps to find out what the resident’s needs are.
The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policy references its obligation to respect the rights of individuals under the Human Rights Act (1998). It also discusses its responsibilities under the Equality Act, and guides its staff that this applies to both “complainants” and “perpetrators”.
The ASB policy lists a number of agencies that its officers should consider making referrals to, however it tells its staff this should be done “before heading to court”, placing this support within the context of enforcement action.
Section 38 of the landlord’s ASB policy discusses that its staff may consider moving a complainant, in cases where remaining in their current home will place them at “further serious risk of injury or harm”. However, it sets out only that this will be considered if a resident requests this, and does not give any guidance or prompt for its staff to proactively consider this option as part of their ASB case management.
The first page of the landlord’s complaints policy states that its five priorities are: building shared prosperity, doing things with residents, not to them, taking pride in the authority’s area, creating a compassionate council, and being ruthlessly financially efficient.
The Housing Ombudsman recently ordered the landlord to consider whether this is conducive to appropriate complaints handling, particularly the wording in relation to being ruthlessly financially efficient (case reference 202204283).
The complaints policy specifies it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In reference to compensation, it says it will “usually follow” the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
The landlord has a separate repairs complaint compensation policy, dating from June 2021 and reviewed in December 2022. It gives examples of circumstances in which the landlord’s staff may offer compensation. It suggests £50 to £250 for minor failures, £250 to £700 for moderate disruption, and over £700 for excessive disruption.
An adaptation is a change the landlord makes to one of its properties, to make it easier for a disabled resident to live there. Adaptations should be individualised modifications, based on the resident’s specific needs.
The landlord’s social care department administers disabled facilities grants (DFGs), which is a form of funding some adaptations. Its occupational therapy (OT) team carries out assessments of residents’ homes, and makes recommendations of work that can be done.
Under the landlord’s adaptations policy, it prioritises applications for adaptations and DFGs based on the assessment of its OT service. Its website says that residents must be “registered as disabled with us” to access adaptations.
The Housing Ombudsman Service is currently conducting a systemic review of the landlord’s complaint handling, under the powers given by paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme. This has been prompted by concerns over delays to repairs and poor communication witnessed in recent cases. The Service will produce a learning report for the landlord, and will make recommendations for service improvement, in the near future.

Summary of Events

The resident has advised that he has made several reports that he was disturbed by noise transference from the flat above his, throughout his tenancy.
The landlord’s records indicate it looked into a report about noise nuisance from the resident in early 2020, and visited him as part of its investigation. It looked to arrange an inspection by a surveyor, which the resident has advised was originally scheduled for May 2020 and was cancelled due to the coronavirus pandemic. The resident has advised that the landlord tried to rearrange this at short notice in September 2020, but he was not available.
The landlord’s records confirm the leaseholder of the flat above the resident changed in mid-2021.
The resident subsequently emailed a stage 1 complaint. There is disagreement about the date of this; the resident has advised that he submitted the complaint on 21 September 2021, and the landlord has advised it received it on 27 September 2021. The evidence seen by this Service shows there was correspondence between the resident and landlord on 21 and 22 October 2021, with the same complaint reference number, which appeared to show a stage 1 complaint was submitted and logged on 21 October 2021.
It has not been possible to reconcile the different accounts of the date the resident first raised the complaint, but it is noted that there is agreement between the parties that this took place towards the end of September 2021.
In his complaint, the resident summarised the history of noise disturbance he had experienced, and set out his concerns:
1. The landlord’s environmental health team had last visited him nearly three years previously, after attending “on numerous occasions over the years”;
2. The team had found that there was inadequate noise insulation between his and his neighbour’s flat;
3. The leaseholder of the neighbouring flat had recently changed, and this would have been an ideal time to ensure sufficient noise insulation was put down by his new neighbour. He had become aware that wooden flooring had been reinstalled by the neighbour;
4. It was his opinion that the landlord had “intentionally neglected [its] duty and intentionally allowed this to play out”, as it was aware of his “sleep deficiency” and mental ill health, and hoped the disturbance would cause him to have a “mental breakdown”;
5. He explained he had no confidence in the landlord’s complaints process, and planned to take it to court, including for “torture”.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 22 October 2021, and advised the resident it would aim to respond by 11 November 2021.
The landlord’s records show it visited the resident’s neighbour on 8 November 2021 and observed that their flat was carpeted, with the exception of the bathroom and a small kitchen area. The landlord took photos which evidence this.
The landlord’s records show its building surveyor did not have access to equipment which could “measure or assess the level of noise transference” between the two flats. The surveyor requested that a referral to the landlord’s environmental health department was made, and advised that if the noise transference was observed to be above “permitted levels”, they would use the information to “determine the scope of remedial works necessary to ensure compliance of the noise transfer”.
On 10 November 2021 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It:
1. Summarised the resident’s complaint as being about:
  1. His new neighbour having been allowed to put down laminate flooring, which had resulted in inadequate noise insulation between the two flats and impacted his health and wellbeing;
  2. The landlord intentionally neglecting its duty around this;
2. Advised it had inspected his neighbour’s flat on 8 November 2021, confirmed that they did not have laminate flooring, and confirmed the flooring they did have was “adequate”;
3. Explained it had already investigated the resident’s concerns regarding the noise insulation between the flats, and found his neighbour to have “adequate insulation”, and that the situation had not changed since then;
4. Noted that the resident had not reported noise nuisance to it since his new neighbours had moved in, and asked him to report this to its environmental health department or his housing officer when it occurred, so it could investigate it;
5. Advised it did not uphold his complaint, and how he could escalate it to stage 2 if he remained dissatisfied. It gave him twenty working days to do this.
The resident replied the same day, by email. He told the landlord it had “completely skipped” the main point of his complaint, and set out his objections to its response:
1. It had recorded the date of his stage 1 complaint as 27 September 2021, when he had submitted it on 21 September 2021. He referenced a screenshot of his complaint, which he said showed the earlier date;
2. The main point of his complaint was that the environmental health team had concluded there was inadequate noise insulation between the two flats, after its previous visit. He referenced an email he had received from the landlord on 7 February 2020, in which it advised it was likely that there was poor sound insulation in place, recognised the impact on him and advised it could arrange a surveyor to inspect if the resident contacted his housing officer;
3. The landlord had relied on the observation of a housing officer, rather than a qualified surveyor with appropriate equipment. He explained his complaint was about the insulation under any floor boards and floor-covering, which could only be established by an inspection;
4. Explained that it was a “redundant” point that he had not made a report of noise nuisance, as he had now complained. He added the context that his new neighbour had moved in in October 2021, and he had been focussed on a particularly important personal issue between September and the present time, and as such did not have the capacity to make a report;
5. He shared a medical diagnosis, which affected his mental health and sleep, with the landlord, and said he had previously told it about this;
6. He advised the landlord he had initiated legal action against it and would not wait for its stage 2 response to proceed with this.
In the early hours of 15 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord by email. He asserted that the landlord and the police were deliberately attempting to disturb his sleep, and that the noise from his neighbour was deliberate. He advised he had been woken around 3am that morning by the sound of repetitive bangs above his head, and noted that he could only hear the noise in his bedroom, and only when he was trying to sleep.
On 15 November 2021 the landlord replied by email, and:
1. Asked the resident to confirm he gave his consent for it to investigate the noise;
2. Asked him, “in the meantime”, to continue to record the times the noise occurred, and pass this to its noise team “as usual”;
3. Offered to refer his case to its multi-agency panel, which it described as a meeting of professionals, where it discussed complex cases with partner agencies;
4. Offered to refer the case to mediation, so that his new neighbour could “understand the impact of the noise” on him;
5. Advised the resident could treat the email as a stage 1 complaint response if he wished, and gave details of who to contact if he wanted to proceed to stage 2;
6. Advised it could refer him to floating housing support or victim support, if he wanted.
On 16 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. He explained:
1. He had some recordings, but had not been able to capture the “bangs” above his head, as they took place when he was in bed, trying to sleep, and would last for “a few seconds”, before pausing, then continuing “repetitively”;
2. He was not sure that mediation was the right option;
3. The landlord had “failed over the years”, it was his view that it understood the “issue regarding inadequate noise insulation”, but had allowed the situation to continue because it was “complicit” in the effect it had on his mental health;
4. He felt legal action against the landlord would be his “only” option, and was confident the court would find “malicious intent” on the part of the landlord.
The landlord responded to the resident on 18 November 2021, and asked him to report the noise to its noise team, and confirm if he had changed his mind and was willing to give his consent for it to contact his neighbour.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that it internally discussed the case between 1 and 8 December 2021. It:
1. Noted its noise team had visited the resident on 6 February 2020 and had observed noise transference from the flat above, including of footsteps and music at a moderate volume, which indicated poor sound insulation. It had also advised the resident that it sounded like his neighbour had hard flooring, instead of carpet, but it could not enforce a change because they were a leaseholder. It advised the resident it would not treat the noise he was hearing as a statutory nuisance;
2. At that visit its noise team had discussed that it was “precluded” from treating noise due to poor sound insulation (“SI”) as a statutory nuisance, “due to historic case law”. It noted the resident had told it that he had “read up on it and confirmed he’s aware this can’t be done because if all the SI had to be improved “it would bankrupt them”, which I confirmed”;
3. Was advised by its noise team that from the character of the noises being heard in the resident’s property, “it is apparent there is very poor sound insulation with regards to structurally borne noise”, and that in properties with poor sound insulation, carpets “may well make little difference, it will often not actually mitigate noise significantly”;
4. Discussed case law which it believed showed section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) did not compel it to take any action regarding noise transference due to poor sound insulation, as it was only required to keep the property in the state it was first built in;
5. Took the view that poor sound insulation did not qualify as disrepair;
6. Discussed that it could arrange another visit to investigate whether normal household noise did indeed transfer between the flats, but that it was not sure what it would be “expected to do about it”;
7. Took the view that the noise transference the resident was experiencing was “disturbing” and “may well give rise to significant disruption”;
8. Judged that the noise the neighbour was generating was not “unreasonable”, and if they lived in a building with “modern design specifications” it likely would not cause a problem;
9. Decided to write to the resident’s neighbour to advise them of the noise complaint and to “be wary of any noise coming from [their] flat”.
On 8 December 2021 the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It:
1. Summarised his stage 2 complaint as being about:
  1. It had deliberately used the wrong date and not properly investigated his stage 1 complaint;
  2. It had missed that the main point of his stage 1 complaint was inadequate sound insulation between the flats;
2. Explained it had quoted the date on its system for the stage 1 complaint, and apologised if this was incorrect;
3. Accepted that the resident had enquired about the insulation between the properties, and advised it had originally arranged for a surveyor to visit in 2020, but this had been postponed due to the pandemic. It advised it would now contact the resident and his neighbour to arrange for a surveyor to carry out “a full inspection”;
4. Advised it had opened a new noise nuisance case and would discuss the transference of noise with his neighbour;
5. Advised it partially upheld his complaint, that this was its final response, and signposted the resident to “the Local Government Ombudsman” if he remained dissatisfied.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that it wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 9 December 2021, advised them it had received complaints of noise nuisance and asked them to be “mindful, particularly late at night”. It further advised that “this could be purely down to the fabric of the building, which unfortunately not a great deal can be done about”. It said it would not take further action at that point, but would keep the case open for three months and would “continue to check how things are going”, and offered the use of its mediation service.
The landlord has advised it contacted the resident on 10 January 2022, and “proposed” that its surveyor attend to carry out an inspection on 14 January 2022.
The landlord’s records show it logged a new stage 1 complaint from the resident on 21 January 2022. It issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident the same day, in which it:
1. Summarised the resident’s complaint as being about:
  1. He had waited for years for a surveyor’s appointment;
  2. He had missed the appointment on 14 January 2022 because he had not seen the email. He should have been given seven days’ notice of the appointment;
  3. He wanted the landlord to compensate him £1,000 for the missed appointment, because he believed it was intentionally neglecting its duties and intentionally “affecting” him;
2. Apologised that the resident had had to wait a “long” time for an appointment with its surveyor;
3. Apologised that the resident missed the appointment on 14 January 2022, because it had not given him more notice of it, noted that he asked for seven days’ notice in future, and advised there was no “protocol on the notice period” it would usually offer for a surveyor’s appointment;
4. Advised that it had now arranged a new appointment for 16 February 2022, which the resident had confirmed he would be in for;
5. Advised it did not uphold his complaint, and would not pay any compensation;
6. Advised the resident how to escalate his complaint to stage 2 if he remained dissatisfied.
On 3 February 2022, the landlord sent the resident an email confirming a four hour slot had been booked in the afternoon of 16 February 2022 and asked him to confirm that the appointment was suitable for him.
The landlord’s records demonstrate it was in correspondence with the neighbour’s representative on 4 February 2022, and sought to arrange an appointment for its surveyor to inspect their flat in relation to a structural sound insulation, also on the afternoon of 16 February 2022.
The landlord has advised its surveyor did attend both the resident and the neighbour’s property, however they “had no facility to measure or assess the level of noise transfer” between the flats. The surveyor suggested that the landlord’s environmental health department instruct a sound engineer to install appropriate equipment to measure the noise transfer and “determine if there is a breach of permitted limits”. It has advised that if a breach was confirmed, the surveyor would then decide on “the scope of the remedial works” needed to ensure “compliance” with regulations.
The landlord has described a “huge backlog” of residents awaiting the use of its noise monitoring equipment, and it has not yet been made available for use in the resident or his neighbour’s flat.
The landlord’s records show it was in correspondence with the neighbour’s representative regarding issues that had arisen from the noise dispute, between February and May 2022.
The resident made further reports of noise from his neighbours, which the landlord investigated and determined to be “daily living noise from children in the property”.
The situation escalated, and the landlord witnessed noise nuisance from the resident on three occasions in January and February 2023, in the form of loud music. In February 2023, the landlord served the resident with a notice of seeking possession and a community protection notice.
In July 2023 the landlord obtained an injunction from the courts, regarding the resident’s behaviour. The landlord has advised us that the resident has not made a further report of noise nuisance, since the injunction was put in place.
As of October 2023, the landlord has advised that the case is currently sitting with its ASB team, that mediation was offered and refused, and that it has advised both parties to continue to report incidents of noise nuisance to it.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman notes that there have been further developments in this case, since the landlord’s final complaint response dated 8 December 2021 and its further stage 1 response of 21 January 2022. In particular, the landlord has served a notice of seeking possession (NOSP), a community protection notice (CPN), and applied for an injunction against the resident.
These are included in the summary of events in order to give full details of the case, however our investigation has focused on the landlord’s actions until the end of its complaints procedure. We have therefore not considered whether the landlord’s actions in serving the NOSP and CPN, or seeking the injunction, were reasonable or appropriate. Whilst these matters are clearly linked to the events of the original complaint, the landlord should first be given a fair opportunity to respond to any fresh complaint about these actions, under its formal complaint procedure.
The landlord identified in February 2020 that the noise in question was not the fault of the resident’s neighbour, and yet it persisted in treating the case as an ASB complaint. This failed the resident, and escalated the tensions between the resident and his neighbour.
The landlord’s internal discussions show it did not think it would matter much whether or not the resident’s neighbour had installed carpet, as it considered the noise transference to be due to issues with the structure of the building. It was unhelpful, then, that it referred to the possibility that the resident’s neighbour was in breach of their lease conditions (by having hard flooring) and that it could not take enforcement, in conversations with the resident.
The landlord failed to consider all options to improve the situation. For example, it did not engage a specialist to assess the quality of the sound insulation between the flats, or what mitigations could be put in place. Its own staff had witnessed the noise transference, but discussed that it could not be forced to do anything under the law. This appears to be representative of a wider approach to noise transference within its homes, and it had discussed with the resident that this is at least partly down to concerns about the financial implications of taking a more proactive approach.
It did not provide any details to the resident concerning the year the property was built or converted, or whether there were any regulations that were applicable at that time. It may well have assumed that the property pre-dated sound-proofing standards, but it should have confirmed the details to the resident to demonstrate it had appropriately considered the issue.
The landlord was aware from the start of the resident’s tenancy that he was vulnerable, and even after he provided details of the nature of the impact of the situation on his mental health, the landlord did not take any steps to consider this and adapt its response appropriately. It is our opinion that the landlord did not give due regard to its responsibilities under the Equality Act (2010) when considering its response to the resident’s concerns. For example, it focused on the statutory definition of noise nuisance, where it would have been more appropriate to recognise that the impact of the noise on the resident was amplified by his mental health conditions.
The landlord failed to consider the use of adaptations or a DFG. This may in part be because its adaptations policy specifies that residents must be “registered” as disabled with it before it will look into options.
The landlord did not consider exploring an offer of a transfer to the resident. The landlord was aware that a dispute had begun to develop out of the unaddressed noise issues, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord’s staff to refer to its ASB policy for guidance on de-escalating it. The policy places the onus on residents, rather than its staff, to think of solutions.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that it involved other agencies in the escalating situation, and instead relied on the resident and his neighbour to request this. The landlord has not demonstrated that it kept the well-being of the resident central to its decision making.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that he was being disturbed by noise from the flat above.
The landlord had not acknowledged that it previously accepted there was a noise transference/ poor sound insulation issue, and it failed to consider all options to mitigate this, taking the resident’s circumstances into account. It also missed its target for response at stage 1 by over two weeks. An order is made below to ensure redress (including compensation) is now offered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance due to poor sound insulation.

Reasons

The landlord did not take into account the impact of the noise transference on the resident. It did not take appropriate steps to understand what his needs were, or consider if it had a duty to him under the Equality Act (2010).
It was inappropriate for the landlord to treat the noise transference as ASB, and this in fact made the situation worse for the resident and his neighbour. The landlord made things worse still, by suggesting that the resident’s neighbour might not have carpet down, even though its internal discussions show it did not think this would make much difference to the noise being transferred. Indeed, the neighbour did have carpet down, but the landlord was never clear about this to the resident.
The landlord took the view that it was not required to do anything to mitigate the noise transference, under building regulations. Whilst it may not have had any obligation under the building regulations to take any action to improve the level of sound insulation, its decision–making appeared to be driven by a desire to prevent spend, rather than what was best for the resident.
The landlord did not appear to consider other remedies, such as a transfer for the resident. The landlord knew the resident was vulnerable, and it did not do enough to support him, to manage the situation, or to explain its position to him.
The landlord did not acknowledge its failures in its complaint responses, and did not offer compensation to the resident, which it should reasonably have done.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must arrange for an appropriately senior manager to apologise to the resident for the impact of its failure to consider his individual needs when deciding how to respond to the noise transference. It must do this within two weeks of this determination and provide a copy to this Service.
The landlord is ordered to directly pay the resident compensation, as set out below, within four weeks of this report’s date:
1. £500 for the impact of its failure to consider his individual needs in relation to noise disturbance;
2. £100 for the time and trouble caused by the delay in its complaint response at stage 1 and its failure to address the core issue of sound insulation between flats at stage 1.
The landlord is ordered, within two weeks of the date of this report, to contact the resident to confirm the full details of his health conditions and record these appropriately on its systems. It should ensure it asks him whether he currently has any support workers, and that it takes appropriate steps to understand if he needs any adjustments to access its services. It should note that he has requested he is given seven days’ notice of any appointments and visits, and should look to accommodate this wherever it reasonably can.
It is ordered that within one month of this report, the landlord arranges for a survey of the sound insulation between the resident and his neighbour’s flat, which should be carried out by an appropriately qualified individual. This survey should also advise the landlord of any potential mitigations that could be installed, and the landlord must, within six weeks of this determination, provide this Service with evidence of the considerations it has given these and the reasoning behind its decision to proceed or not with the options given. The landlord is encouraged to consider whether use of its adaptations or DFG budgets are appropriate here.
Once the outcome of the considerations of any mitigations arising from the above survey is known, the landlord should also discuss with the resident the options available for a move from the property. It should provide confirmation to this Service when this is complete, which should be within six weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord review the wording of its ASB policy and consider clarifying that staff can consider:
1. referrals to third party agencies at the earliest stages of their case handling, and in cases where proceeding to court is unlikely;
2. discussing the option of a transfer with residents, without relying on them to request this first.
It is recommended that the landlord review the failings in this case and consider whether it could make any changes to its adaptations and DFG guidance, for staff and residents, to ensure all appropriate options are considered in similar cases that may arise in future.
The landlord is urged to read the Housing Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on noise complaints: Time to be heard (24 October 2022), and to implement the recommendations.
This Service previously ordered the landlord to review the use of its fifth “priority”, derived from its vision statement, which is given prominence in its complaints policy: “be ruthlessly financially efficient”. In response, it advised it would not make changes. Due to the failings identified in this investigation, it is recommended that the landlord takes action to specifically review the potential impact this statement has on the delivery of its housing services (those concerning its landlord and tenant activities), and the appropriateness of continuing to tie it so closely to its complaints handling approach.