Islington Council (202318276)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318276

Islington Council

28 June 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 landlord’s management of and response to reports of noise disturbance from the tank room.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and recordkeeping.

 

Background

3. The resident held a secure tenancy for the property which began on 20 June 2012. She lived in a 2 bed first floor flat with her daughter. The resident’s vulnerabilities include mental health and physical factors, and the NHS mental health services are engaged with her daughter. The evidence also shows it was informed of these vulnerabilities by the resident and her support workers over varying times from 2019.
4. The resident’s complaint relates to noise from the tank room, which was located under her flat. The evidence shows multiple complaints about the issue. While this investigation will be considering the complaint dated 22 March 2023 (complaint A), a prior complaint about noise on 18 January 2023 (complaint B) is relevant to this investigation.
5. In terms of complaint B, the landlord’s stage 1 response on 1 February 2023 partially upheld the resident’s complaint stating an appointment with her was arranged to discuss concerns and next steps around the noise issue. After escalation, the landlord partially upheld her complaint in its stage 2 outcome, on 17 March 2023, acknowledging delays identifying and resolving the noise issue and the inconvenience caused. It offered £225 compensation (£100 for repair delays, £100 for time and trouble, and £25 for the stage 2 response delay).
6. The resident’s complaint A, which is the focus of this investigation, initially concerned issues around a boiler repair. However, in an email to the landlord on 16 April 2023, further complaint information was set out:
   1. The compensation offer from the complaint B outcome was declined.
   2. The noise issue was unresolved. She said it was distressing, constant, could be heard from every room, disrupted sleep, caused headaches, and impacted their daily lives, and stopped peaceful enjoyment of their home. They spent time away from their flat to escape the noise and this had a financial impact on her (eg eating out).
   3. Her daughter was noise sensitive. She said on one occasion she found her daughter sitting and crying inside the tumble dryer. At the start of December 2022, she ordered ear defenders for her daughter for times when they had nowhere to go to escape the noise.
   4. A noise impact assessment had not been done.
   5. She gave examples of unsuccessful attempts to call and meet with the landlord about the noise issue.                                
7. The landlord’s complaint A stage 1 response of 12 June 2023 focussed on immersion repairs, heating loss and hot water. It apologised for its response delay and offered £248 compensation, of which £50 was for the stage 1 delay.
8. The resident said on 13 July 2023 she was dissatisfied and requested that complaint A be escalated. Within her request she raised her dissatisfaction with the compensation offered at stage 1 for complaint A and also her continued dissatisfaction with the final outcome of complaint B which the landlord had provided a stage 2 response to on 17 March 2023. She stated:
   1. The compensation offer was accepted, she said it fell short and did not reflect her experience.
   2. Noise recording equipment had not been installed to investigate the noise issue.
   3. She had concerns about potential hearing loss for herself and her daughter.
9. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 10 August 2023 as follows:
   1. A previous complaint (complaint B) had addressed the noise issues with responses being issued at stage 1 on 1 February and stage 2 on 17 March 2023.
   2. In March 2023, it found that the pump unit was not the source of the noise and was possibly “boxing at high level” which required soundproofing. Thereafter, the tank room ceiling was insulated, as part of damp works, and consequently, the noise transference was potentially mitigated.
   3. The lack of clarity about the soundproofing, was unsatisfactory and an update would be provided upon further information being received.
   4. On 9 August 2023, its contractor and pump manufacturer had found defects with the pump, which were due to be addressed. It accepted past pump repairs had not resolved the noise disturbance.
   5. While noise recording equipment was no longer available to it, it should have told her to use the noise app to record noise disturbance and apologised for this omission. It asked her to keep reporting the issue to it.
   6. It apologised for not resolving the noise disturbance and offered compensation of £525 in addition to the £248 awarded at stage 1.
10. On 22 August 2023, the resident said she would accept the compensation but was dissatisfied with it as the noise disturbance continued. In its response on 29 August 2023, the landlord said a bearing failure in the pump set caused the noise and its contractor was awaiting parts. After the pump repair, it would arrange a noise level test and consider soundproofing the tank room. It apologised for any distress while the repair was outstanding and in recognition of this, it said it would pay an extra £100 on top of the £525 compensation offered.
11. The resident described the noise issue as distressing, a “living hell”, “unbearable” and “psychological torture” as it she felt it interrupted their daily lives with relief from it being sought away from their home. She was concerned about hearing loss and the impact on mental health for herself and her daughter as well as the sleep disturbance experienced.
12. The resident was moved temporarily from her property on 6 October 2023 and accepted an offer of a new property made by the landlord on 14 February 2024.
13. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 21 August 2023. The resident is seeking compensation as a resolution.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14. The scope of this investigation has been limited to considering matters raised in the 6 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint (complaint A) in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme and therefore, since 21 September 2022 onwards. The investigation covers matters until 28 August 2023, when it concluded its complaint A stage 2 follow up. Relevant factors outside this period may however be referenced for contextual purposes.
15.  In correspondence with this Service in 2023, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her decant request, but the evidence does not show she previously complained about this matter to the landlord. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that have not fully exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about a decant is outside the scope of this investigation. If she so choses she may wish to make a complaint to the landlord regarding its management of her decant request.

The landlord’s management of and response to reports of noise disturbance from the tank room

16. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its priorities for repairs:
    1. Emergency repairs within 2 hours.
    2. Urgent repairs within 24 days (eg “repairs that affect a tenant’s day-to-day living”).
    3. Routine repairs within 20 days.
17. The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy state it is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order installations for room and water heating and, installations for supply of water. In the event of major works, a resident may be moved temporarily or permanently. This reflects its statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which also confirms a landlord must complete repairs within a reasonable time.
18. The landlord’s housing procedure major works transfers policy states residents may be moved temporarily until works have been completed upon the recommendation of a surveyor.
19. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards, which are a health and safety risk to residents. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category 1 hazards, which includes noise exposure. The possible health effects include headaches, stress, sleep disturbance and anxiety.
20. While it is out of the scope of this investigation, the wider evidence shows the noise issue from the tank room was raised by the resident in June 2022. The evidence shows the landlord attempted repairs before its decision in July 2022 to replace the tank pump.
21. The pump was installed on 21 October 2022. The decision to replace the pump was taken in mid-July 2022, and there followed a period awaiting quotes, ordering of the pump, and then sourcing a missing part following receipt of the pump. While this period fell outside its routine repairs timeframe, it was still in line with its repairs policy as the delay was due to “getting specialist materials for the job”.
22. The new pump did not resolve the noise issue. The evidence shows the landlord and its contractors continued to investigate and address the noise issue with different remedial works attempted. These included:

1. Re‐commission of booster pump on 8 November 2022.
2. Replacement of bellows on 22 February 2023.
3. Replacement of defective ball joint valve on 27 March 2023.
4. Installation of expansion couplings and inertia feet at the end of spring 2023.
5. Valve renewal on 9 October 2023.
6. Replacement of bearing and seal on pumps on 13 October 2023.
7. Re-attenuation of booster pumps on 6 December 2023.

23. Based on the evidence provided, including references in emails and contact notes, there were approximately 40 visits by the landlord and its contractors, and it took a total of 18 months to provide a reasonably successful remedy to the noise issue.
24. The new pump was procured by the landlord from a European manufacturer. It is unclear why this was the chosen procurement route as later delays occurred when parts were required.
25. Inadequate oversight and works instructions, for example by means of a well defined specification and installation methodology and or by means of a post completion survey also led to later problems with the efficient working of the pump. For example, the landlord’s contractor installed the pump without an anti-vibration joint in line with manufacturer’s instructions.
26. It is without doubt that all parties agree that the noise transference from the tank room was unreasonable. Despite this, there were unreasonable delays with the consideration of suitable soundproofing or other noise suppression measures.
27. The evidence provided shows the landlord considered sound proofing as an option on 30 November 2022; its contractors recommended it after a visit on 22 February 2023; emails on 16 May 2023 raised exploring it; and the stage 2 follow up of 10 August 2023 stated it would be considered after the bearing was replaced. However, despite this, no actual action was taken other than the installation, in late summer 2023 of insulation designed to improve thermal efficiency to the tank room ceiling.
28. It is clear the noise experience by the resident was significant and continued for over a year. While soundproofing may have only moderated the impact of the noise, it was not acted upon in any way beyond consideration. This cannot but have caused the resident to experience an avoidably elevated level of impact for an unnecessarily extended period of time, creating disappointment, distress, and a loss of confidence in the landlord’s commitment to resolution.
29. Information provided to this Service by the resident makes clear that she felt unable to enjoy her home as the noise was “mentally distressing” for her and her daughter.
30. The compensatory remedy and apology offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the impact upon the resident and the failings identified by both it and this investigation.
31. When all factors are considered, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its management of the resident’s report of noise from the tank room.

Complaint handling

32. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a two-stage complaint process with responses being issued within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It aims to provide “consistently good quality” services. It says it will “agree a reasonable extension of the timescale” with the resident if more time is needed for its investigation.
33. The landlord’s compensation guidance sets out a table for compensation for differing types of complaints with banded values based on the impact on the resident. It states payments can be made for time and trouble, delay, and distress. In disrepair cases, compensation will “range between £500 and £2500 pa depending on the severity of the problem”.
34. The evidence seen demonstrates that the resident attempted to progress two complaints about the noise issues in 2022 as follows:
    1. On 24 October 2022, her representative complained and internal emails state the complaint was logged at stage 1. The landlord has told this Service that this complaint was resolved “informally”.
    2. Thereafter, the resident complained again on 5 November 2022, but there is no evidence seen that this was either acknowledged or responded to.
35. These were missed early opportunities to actively engage with the resident’s concerns and show her it was taking them seriously.
36. At stage 1 the resident’s complaint A and escalation were acknowledged after 50 working days and 8 working days, respectively. Both acknowledgements were not compliant with the landlord’s policy timescales and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time, which stated complaints must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 within 5 days of receipt of the complaint. The landlord has told this Service the delay with the original complaint was due to a backlog and a resourcing issue.
37. The landlord’s complaint responses to complaint A were issued after 53 working days (of complaint made) and 20 working days (of escalation) at stage 1 and 2, respectively. Therefore, its stage 1 response exceeded its policy timeframe.
38. The resident made a series of complaints from October 2022 to complaint A. These complaints covered a range of issues with some later complaints resurfacing previously raised matters or adding new information. Of particular note is the resident’s detailed email of 16 April 2023. In this she set out information about the noise issue which she said had not been provided to the landlord previously. This Service has not seen an acknowledgement or response to the noise aspect in this email. It was however forwarded internally. The landlord also failed to address this further aspect of her complaint in its stage 1 response of 12 June 2023.
39. While the range of issues raised and frequency of the resident’s complaints was challenging, the landlord was unable to successfully extrapolate, manage, and respond effectively and comprehensively to all the specific elements of the complaint that this Service has investigated.
40. When considered cumulatively, the lack of cohesion in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaints, its failure to offer an adequate level of compensation and the impact that the poor investigation and response delays had upon a resolution of the substantive issue of noise, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint.

Record keeping

41. The landlord’s record keeping seen in this case indicates considerable failings. This Service asked it to provide evidence in the form of, for example, all correspondence and contact notes, repair logs, visit records and inspection reports. The evidence it provided in response was limited and featured numerous omissions including but not limited to:
    1. Resident’s complaint of 17 January 2023.
    2. Resident daughter’s complaint of 3 December 2022.
    3. Visit records by:
       1. The landlord (eg 2,4 and 23 November 2022; 1 and 2 August 2023).
       2. Its external contractors (eg 5, 14, 18 and 22 July 2022; 19 October 2022; 8 November 2022; 19 and 27 September 2023, 9 and 13 October 2023).
       3. Joint landlord and contactors (eg 7 March 2023 and 9 August 2023).
    4. Acoustics report following a visit on 13 November 2023.
    5. Call records with the resident (eg 28 November 2022; 15 May 2023; 18 and 19 September 2023).
    6. Record of the resident’s housing office visit (eg 1 December 2022).
42. This Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information recommends “records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why” with records being clear and timely, accurately recording decisions and the reasons for them.
43. The absence of such relevant information and records cannot but have compromised effective management and resolution of the substantive noise issue, alongside compromising the effectiveness of its complaint management function. For example, the absence of records in August 2023 meant the landlord had to wait for a contractor’s leave to end before being updated of actions.
44. This investigation has used information provided by the resident and references to events within the landlord’s wider correspondence. Clear record keeping is a core function of repair, and wider landlord services. It allows evidence to be provided to the Ombudsman when requested. More importantly, clear record keeping is essential to enable landlords to monitor outstanding works, contractor performance, and provide effective services to its residents. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records including, but not restricted to, resident repair reports, attendances, findings, and actions.
45. When the landlord’s practices and resultant impacts are considered cumulatively the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord for its poor record keeping.
46. The Ombudsman has carried out an investigation of the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The report was published in October 2023. The paragraph 49 investigation identified a number of failings in the landlord’s practices similar to those that have featured in this investigation. Given the orders issued within the paragraph 49 report, we have not made further duplicate orders. However, the landlord must ensure that any of the failings in this report have been adequately covered in line with the paragraph 49 report.

Determination

47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s management of and response to reports of noise disturbance from the tank room.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

50. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:

1. Pay directly to the resident a total of £3350. This figure includes the landlord’s redress offer of £873 if it has not made this payment already. The compensation comprises:
   1. £3000 for its management of and response to reports of noise disturbance from the tank room. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress, time and trouble, and inconvenience.
   2. £250 for its complaint handling failures. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress, time and trouble and inconvenience.
   3. £100 for its poor record keeping handling failures.

 

b. A senior management officer, at Director level or above, must meet with the resident and apologise in person for the failures identified in this report and the resultant adverse impacts on the resident.

51.  The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 8 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:

a. Review its repairs operational practices in noise transference cases such as this. This review must examine:

i.  Why the repair took 18 months to resolve?

ii. The adequacy of oversight of its contractors.

iii. Why its contractors did not install the pump in line with manufacturer’s instructions?

iv. The lack of a post-inspection of its contractor’s work.

v. The lack of soundproofing not being proactively considered at an early stage.

b. Identified improvements must be brought into its day to day operations within 3 months.