London Borough of Hounslow (202119661)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119661

London Borough of Hounslow

10 January 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 response to the resident’s:

1. Reports of noise transference from the upstairs property when the washing machine was in use.
2. Reports of water leaks in the kitchen.
3. Reports of drain blockages and the backflow of water in the property.
4. Concerns about hard floor covering being installed by his neighbour, and noise transference.
5. Complaint.

Background

2        The resident moved to the property in 2005, and acquired the leasehold title from the landlord in 2011 under the Right to Buy Scheme. The property is a ground floor studio apartment.

3        From the evidence provided, it is noted in 2019 the resident raised issues of noise coming from the flat above his (Flat A). The resident said the washing machine was being used continuously, and this caused noise nuisance. The resident also expressed concern that his neighbour was running an “illegal launderette”.

4        Starting in May 2019 the resident reported multiple water leaks and problems with the property’s drainage. He said water was coming through his kitchen ceiling from Flat A. He also expressed concern that wastewater and soap suds were back flowing out into his shower, toilet and sink.

5        In January 2021 the resident began to complain about an increase in noise from Flat A. He said this was because they had removed their carpet and installed a hard floor covering with no sound damping.

6        The resident contacted the Service with his concerns in November 2021. We subsequently wrote to the landlord and it opened a formal complaint on 13 December 2021.

7        In its stage 1 response on 20 January 2022 the landlord said the neighbour denied running a launderette from Flat A. Stating, the heavy use of the washing machine was because they had a large family. The response also suggested mediation between the resident and neighbour adding that both sides would need to agree. The landlord said because of the multiple complaints relating to the blocked pipes it had asked for a surveyor to carry out a full inspection. The landlord said the outcome would be shared with the resident, but because the case was still being investigated the complaint was not upheld.

8        The resident was unhappy with the response and sought to escalate the complaint. He notified the Service as such, and we asked the landlord on 9 June 2022 to issue a stage 2 complaint response. The stage 2 response was issued by the landlord the following day on 10 June 2022. It stated:

1. there was no evidence of a failure in its complaint handling.
2. the level of noise was “normal household noise”.
3. It contacted the neighbour’s management agency who dispatched a plumber to rectify the leak each time it was reported.
4. The flooding was still under investigation and a survey was requested in February 2022.

As the investigation was ongoing for the flooding it rejected the complaint and stated if the resident was unhappy with the outcome he should appeal to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Assessment and findings

Noise transference from washing machine

9        The evidence provided to the Service does not demonstrate that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was appropriate. The resident reported on 15 May 2019 that he was experiencing a high level of noise nuisance from Flat A. Initially, the resident was unsure what the source of the noise was. However, in subsequent reports, the resident referred to the washing machine specifically, and that it was being run continuously. The resident also expressed his view that the neighbour was operating an “illegal launderette” in Flat A. The resident also expressed concern at this time that his reports were being ignored.

10   The evidence does not suggest that the resident made any reports of noise nuisance during 2020. However, on 30 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord’s leaseholder services informing it the washing machine in the neighbour’s property was in continuous use. There was no response from the landlord until 8 February 2021 when it informed the resident it was waiting for the occupant of Flat A to contact them.

11   The landlord’s website in relation to antisocial behaviour asks residents to keep a diary of events and take photographs or videos of incidents. The evidence does not suggest that the resident was provided with such advice, and it is unclear why not. However, the resident reported on several occasions that he did have recordings of the noise which he wanted to play to the landlord to demonstrate his concerns.

12   Between December 2020 and May 2021 there were multiple emails between the resident and landlord. The landlord visited the resident on the 29 April 2021 when it did listen to some of the his audio recordings. The housing officer reported they only heard “low level muffled sounds” of a washing machine. They stayed at the property for 1 and a half hours to see if there was any noise nuisance but did not hear any during the visit.

13   The landlord did not ask the resident to make notes of the noise issues including the time it started and stopped until 18 May 2021. The landlord also reported “dialogue had begun” with the occupant of Flat A. It intended to meet them in the coming weeks to discuss the issue. This was reasonable; however, the only evidence of this dialogue occurring is a note to the resident mentioning that the neighbour denied running an “illegal laundrette”. There is no mention of any visit to Flat A, or an inspection taking place. Given that the resident had first reported issues about noise transference 2 years earlier, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider investigating the matter further. Not doing so was a failing.

14   On 24 May 2021, the housing officer suggested the resident contact the local authority’s enforcement team to get sound level monitoring equipment installed. This was because the resident reported nothing had changed in the behaviour of the neighbour and the noise had not reduced.

15   The resident did email the enforcement team on 24 May 2021 to ask for the sound level monitoring equipment, but it was never installed. As such an opportunity to establish if there was an issue was missed leaving the resident without a satisfactory outcome. Having suggested the resident contact the enforcement team it would have been reasonable for the landlord to monitor the situation and chase up the installation of the equipment on the resident’s behalf. There is no evidence this was done. The landlord’s ASB procedure states staff (Housing Officer, ASB Manager) should engage in joint working and this was lacking in this case.

16   The landlord appropriately took steps to discuss the matter with the occupant of Flat A in September 2021. Following which the resident reported the washing machine use had decreased. However, by the 6 October 2021 the resident reported the use of the washing machine had again increased. The resident also expressed concern about the length of time that the noise transference had been ongoing, stating that he had experienced years of “severe antisocial behaviour” from the neighbour running a “nonstop laundrette throughout the day and night”. He further added the landlord had not taken any action and he was being sent round in circles.

17   The landlord’s ASB policy states the housing officer should work closely with the housing ASB team and the local authority’s enforcement team. Doing so allows it to deliver solution focussed proposals, ensuring all management tools have been utilised to combat noise nuisance.

18   In this case no one department seems to have taken the lead on this complaint or tried to resolve the issue. The stage 2 response submitted to the Service suggests the housing officer only made one visit. The resident was told to contact the enforcement team himself and it also only made one visit to the block. Because there was little or no evidence of noise on those occasions nothing further was done. Two visits over 3 years was not adequate to try to establish if there was an issue with noise nuisance. The evidence does not show joined up working as suggested is good practice in the landlord’s policy.

19   While the Service would not expect the landlord to visit the block on every occasion noise is reported, 2 visits over this period is not proportionate to the number of reports received. The number of notifications and length of time the situation was ongoing for warranted additional investigation of the additional reports.

20   The resident has stated in his correspondence with the landlord that he has a vast library of audio evidence of what is happening. The available evidence suggests the landlord has not reviewed the resident’s audio recordings since April 2021. It is therefore unclear how the landlord has concluded that there is no evidence of noise nuisance or noise transference. The landlord did not carry out a sufficiently robust investigation. Not listening to the recordings did not allow the landlord to gain a true understanding of the noise.

21   The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about noise nuisance. It said the neighbour had denied running an illegal laundrette and the heavy use of the washing machine was due to them having a large family. While it was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with a response to this specific concern, its overall response was not appropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to use the complaints process as the opportunity to review its handling of the matter and to confirm whether it had responded to the resident’s reports in line with its policy. It did not do this. 

22   In its response the landlord added the managing agent for Flat A had suggested mediation to allow all parties to understand the issues and prevent future hostilities. The landlord’s policy suggests the use of mediation for lifestyle disputes to help parties reach an amicable agreement. There is no evidence the landlord spoke to the resident or the neighbour about completing mediation and no evidence this was set up despite referring to it within the stage 1 complaint response.

23   The ASB policy states the landlord will actively promote mediation services to resolve low and medium level ASB. The Service’s Spotlight report on noise complaints issued in 2022 states – “To handle noise reports that do not meet the statutory threshold, landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy, distinct to the ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships. This should include mediation”. As such, by failing to consider the use of mediation further, the landlord missed an opportunity to potentially help resolve the issue.

24   The landlord did ask the resident to keep a diary of the noise issues in May 2021. The resident did not complete notes of the noise until nearly a year later, between 10 March 2022 and 17 April 2022. It is unclear why the resident delayed in keeping a diary; however, this would reasonably have contributed to a lack of involvement on behalf of the landlord during this period. However, after receiving the diary and notes, there is no evidence the landlord considered them. The notes show there were instances of increased noise transference during the day, predominantly in the morning between 7am and 9am and then in the afternoon and evening between 3.30pm and 11pm. The washing machine and TV were sometimes heard later than this. There is no evidence the landlord reviewed the diary sheets, or used this evidence to inform its next steps. In addition, the landlord did not provide the resident with any feedback.

25   The resident emailed the landlord on 24 April 2022 disputing correspondence from it on 9 April 2022 where it said when its officers visited the property at 11.54pm they did not hear any noise. The resident states this was incorrect and when the officers visited, they did witness the noise coming from the television and also the washing machine in Flat A. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable to do so; and to explain how this conclusion was reached. We have not been provided with any contemporaneous evidence relating to the visit and therefore it is not possible for us to conclude what transpired.

26   The landlord relied on the 2 visits as proof there was no issue with noise. The resident was later told to speak to the environmental services noise team if he remained dissatisfied. This was not a satisfactory investigation of the issue. If the landlord believed further investigation may be warranted by the environmental services noise team it would have been reasonable for it to suggest this, or make the referral itself, earlier in the process. This was not a reasonable response to what the resident felt was severe ASB which affected his peaceful enjoyment of his property.

27   The resident has advised that he asked to escalate his complaint in March 2022. However the landlord failed to respond. As such, the resident contacted the Service and on 9 June 2022, we asked the landlord to issue a stage 2 response. The Service has not seen a copy of the resident’s original escalation request, but it is noted that the resident was in communication with the landlord around this time.

28   When the landlord issued its stage 2 response it said it had seen no evidence of the operation of an “illegal laundrette”. It added that when it had visited the property there had been no noise as described by the resident. It believed the noise was normal household noise but if not happy with the response the resident should contact the environmental services noise team to investigate statutory nuisance noise. There is no evidence the landlord kept an oversight of the referral to the other department or the outcome of it. This would have demonstrated its commitment to helping the resident. By focusing on statutory noise, the landlord overlooked preventative and agreed or mediated solutions.

29   As per the Spotlight report, to handle noise reports that do not meet the statutory threshold, landlords should consider mediation, information sharing and community building events and, where appropriate, dedicated staffing. This will ensure that low level issues of neighbour friction are dealt with at the appropriate levels and not inappropriately handled as potential ASB.

30   The landlord could have done more throughout the process to help the resident and been timelier in its actions. In line with the ASB policy the landlord should have explored the use of acoustic sound deadening mats under the washing machine or other noise suppression opportunities to help combat the noise nuisance the resident is unhappy with.

31   The investigation in this case was insufficient and did not fully explore the issues. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord was proactive in trying to resolve the issues the resident had reported. It did not arrange mediation, or listen to a sufficient number and breadth of the resident’s recordings. There is no evidence the landlord reviewed the notes made by the resident showing when the noise was most prevalent. It then failed to visit the block regularly during the most likely times to see for itself if there was an issue and what the issue was. If there was no issue making more visits would have allowed the landlord to evidence this.

32   The use of a washing machine itself is not ASB therefore it was important the landlord explored preventative measures. If it had looked to arrange mediation as it had suggested, and in line with the Spotlight report, it could have discussed the use of the washing machine – for example the time of day it was used, the number of times it was used each day and the number of washing cycles each time it was used.

33   There is no evidence the landlord has looked at preventative measure and potential solutions that may have reduced the transference of noise and stopped the matter from escalating. At this point while the issue was about washing machine noise the landlord could have considered suggesting the use of acoustic noise and vibration deadening mats or checked that the machine was balanced properly on a level surface. The Spotlight report advocates for landlords to install such a mat as it recognises installation under white goods helps to absorb the noise and stop its transference to other properties. It adds “the potential for these measures to prevent complaints should not be underestimated”. That the landlord did not explore such an option was a missed opportunity.

34   The Service believes the landlord should consider offering mediation to the parties too, to see if this can repair the neighbour relationship. This would be in line with its policy An order has also been made to ensure that the landlord visits Flat A and considers whether an acoustic noise and vibration deadening mat would help to reduce the level of noise transference.

Water leaks in the kitchen ceiling.

35   The resident first reported water leaks through his kitchen ceiling in May 2019. We have been provided with photographs of the leak, taken by the resident. These show water dripping through a crack in the ceiling and also running down the wall. The resident reports this has happened in excess of 8 times, and it is the leaks that caused the crack. The resident stated he believed the leak was from Flat A.

36   As both properties are leasehold the landlord told the resident it was not responsible for repairs. The resident was told to inform the neighbour of the leak so they could stop it. It was appropriate for the landlord to suggest that the resident contact his neighbour in the first instance. However, it would have been reasonable for it to ask him to report back and could have taken some steps to satisfy itself that there was not an outstanding leak within a communal area.

37   In the resident’s lease, there is an obligation on him to make good any damage caused as a result of any “act or default”. As we do not have a copy of the lease for Flat A, we cannot comment on the specific provisions contained within it. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to review Flat A’s lease and confirm if there were circumstances in which the neighbour would be responsible for the repairs within the property.

38   In this case there is no evidence that the landlord liaised with the occupant of Flat A. The landlord reported on 7 June 2019 it had “spoken to the neighbour and the issue had hopefully been resolved and should prevent future leaks”. However it is unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion. The contemporaneous evidence does not detail what steps the landlord had taken; or suggest that the landlord knew what the issue had been or what had been done to ensure it would not happen again.

39   There were no further leaks reported until 7 December 2020 when the resident reported that again water was leaking through the kitchen ceiling in the same place as before. He added he had decorated since the last leak and on this occasion he had to call the fire brigade because he was worried the leak may affect the electrics.

40   The resident said when he called to report the matter there was no response from the housing officer or leaseholder team.  There is no evidence as to the time the report was made, but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered why there was no response when it investigated the resident’s complaint. In his email to the landlord the resident also said he wanted to claim compensation for the redecorating.

41   The landlord repairs team did respond the following day and apologised for no response. This was appropriate in the circumstances. In its communication the landlord asked for details of the exact issue. It is unclear whether the landlord took any action to make enquiries with the neighbour from Flat A about the source of the leak or the repair work that had been completed. Given the assurance the landlord had provided the resident in June 2019, it would have been reasonable for it to take such action.

42   As the source of the leak was unknown the landlord should have either conducted its own investigation or assisted both the resident and the occupant of Flat A in finding the source. Given the landlord’s responsibility as the freeholder of the property, it would have been reasonable for it to take some steps to assist with this process. In addition, the landlord failed to address the resident’s comments in relation to compensation.

43   The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 December 2020 as he had not received any update or response in relation to making a claim for the damage that had been caused within his property. He contacted the landlord again 2 days later as he had seen no action to deal with the damage or stop it from happening again.

44   As before the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to conduct an investigation and speak to the neighbour to establish the cause of the leak. This would have allowed it to establish if the leak had come from Flat A or other pipework in the building, which, under the terms of the lease it is responsible for. It would also have been an opportunity to remind the neighbour of their obligations under their lease.

45   The resident chased the matter in January, and the landlord responded on 8 February 2021. It advised it was still waiting for the neighbour to contact it to arrange a meeting. There is no evidence the neighbour did contact the landlord and no evidence the landlord chased them up for a response. The following day the landlord emailed the resident again stating it could find no evidence in the repairs journal of previous leaks. The previous leaks however would not affect the claim the resident wanted to make for the damage caused on this occasion. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows the landlord was aware of this leak and therefore it should have investigated the source and told the resident how he could make an insurance claim. 

46   The source of the water leak does not appear to have been identified. The evidence provided to the Service shows that the occupant of Flat A denied that it emanated from within their property. The landlord did carry out a survey, but it was also unable to find the source. A further leak was reported on 19 August 2021 and again in January 2022. The landlord’s repairs logs do not show that it took any action in response to these reports and the source of the problem remains unknown. In the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the landlord to have taken further steps to investigate the source of the leak, and taken remedial action where necessary.

47   In practice the landlord’s building insurance indemnifies the landlord from claims for damage as it gives residents an outlet to seek redress, however it did not inform the resident how they could make a claim in this case. While the landlord was unable to find the source of the leak, it would have been reasonable for it to provide the resident within information about its insurer so the issue of liability could be decided. This is a failing in the management of this case.

48   The level of service offered by the landlord to support the resident with these incidents over a 2 year 7 month period was not sufficient. It did not suitably investigate the cause of the leaks, did not respond to several reports, did not seek to prevent further issues and failed to provide the resident with information, or an appropriate response, in relation to his request for compensation. The failings amount to maladministration.

Drain blockage

49   The resident has expressed concern about blocked drains within the property. It is unclear when his concerns were first raised, and how the landlord responded. However, it is noted that in November 2019 the landlord arranged for the drains to be cleared. On 13 November 2019 the resident emailed the landlord to inform it the drain company appointed to fix the drains and prevent them back flowing had been rude, had not fixed the issue and had hung up when he had phoned. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this.

50   The resident emailed the landlord a year later on both the 11 and 13 November 2020. He stated his issues with blocked drains still had not been fixed. He said he had reported the issue several times in the preceding weeks and also expressed concern about the conduct of the contractors. The resident reported the same contractors had attended previously but had never manged to fix the issue.

51   In response, the landlord advised that another team would attend the following day to try to fix the problem with a high pressure water jet. The resident remained at home the next day to provide access, but the team did not attend. The Service have not seen any evidence this appointment was completed and the matter was left unresolved.

52   The evidence seen by the Service shows water and soap suds coming from the shower waste and also overflowing from the toilet and in the sink. The resident described this to the landlord in his correspondence. The evidence does not show the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, or that any further visits were made to the property in the months that followed.

53   On 18 May 2021, following further reports by the resident, the landlord informed him that he should send his concerns to the “correct” email address. It failed to specify within its correspondence what this was or forward the email on for him.

54   The resident reported another blockage on 6 October 2021 to a housing officer. He stated he had reported this to the repairs team as the blockage had caused the waste to again backflow into the bathroom. The resident reported this initially to the landlord’s repairs team. He said he was told unless he called and paid for a plumber to confirm the blockage was in a communal pipe the landlord would not intervene to do the repair.

55   While the resident is responsible for the pipes within his property, the landlord is responsible for common pipes. As a result there would be some onus on the resident to ensure that the pipes, within the property, which were his responsibility were free from issues. However the evidence shows wastewater and soap suds coming out of the resident’s shower and toilet. The evidence shows waste water and soap suds coming out of the resident’s shower and toilet. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the communal pipes to ensure that they were free from blockages.

56   In communication with the Service on 20 January 2022 the landlord confirmed it would get a surveyor to carry out a full investigation. A survey was conducted approximately 3 months later on 10 March 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 June 2022, before it received the results of the survey. Within its correspondence, the landlord said it would update the resident further once the survey results were received. While this was appropriate, it is unclear why the survey was delayed; and why the results were not available 3 months after it had been commissioned. Furthermore, the evidence does not demonstrate that the outcome of the survey has been shared with the resident.

57   We have not been provided with a copy of the survey either. However, we have received an email setting out the surveyor’s findings that there was no blockage. The surveyor said he had considered requesting a CCTV survey, but as another contractor had attended recently, he concluded no further action was required. While the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its surveyor, given that the issue was already longstanding, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore a CCTV survey. It is unclear why it did not.

58   Although the survey showed no blockage, further issues were reported by the resident. On 20 June 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended and plunged and rodded the waste gully at the front of the property. It attended again on the 28 June 2023 when it rodded and high-pressure water jetted the manhole to clear a blockage that had been found. The flow was then tested, and it had been restored to its full capacity. The resident has reported he has not had any further issue with the drains since this was completed.

59   The issue has now been rectified but it took too long to do so. If thorough investigations had been undertaken at the outset, the source of the problem may have been identified sooner. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was overall inappropriate. While it has taken steps to resolve the issue, it delayed significantly in doing so, and the evidence does not show that it acted proactively in responding to the resident’s concerns.

Noise from hard floor covering.

60   On 7 January 2021 the resident asked the landlord if it had given the neighbour in Flat A permission to remove the carpet floor covering and install hard flooring. He expressed concern that this had happened as it created noise nuisance. There is no evidence the landlord responded.

61   The resident’s lease does not mention types of flooring allowed in the property and the Service have not seen the lease for Flat A. However, in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have discussed the noise transference complaint with the resident and to have engaged with him. It should have ascertained what noises could be heard and when. It would have also been reasonable, and proportionate to discuss the matter with the occupant of Flat A. This would have established if the issue was one of noise transference or nuisance. If it was transference then options relating to noise suppression could reasonably have been explored.

62   There is no evidence the landlord conducted any investigation in this case. It has not recorded any visits to Flat A to examine what flooring had been used or how it had been installed. It still has not answered the resident’s questions about this or offered any advice about it, prolonging his uncertainty.

63   The landlord has made 2 recorded visits to the resident’s property. As detailed above the landlord visited on 29 April 2021 and in summary listened to some of the resident’s recordings and decided there was no excessive noise. The housing officer remained at the address for 1 and a half hours and reported there was no noise nuisance.  Although the landlord said it had spoken to the neighbour there is no evidence it inspected the flooring.

64   The resident’s request for the enforcement team to install sound level monitoring equipment, made on the advice of the landlord (as detailed above) was never followed up and an opportunity to understand the full position was missed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the enforcement team and query whether the installation of the equipment could go ahead. There is no evidence this was done, and it is unclear why not.

65   There is no evidence the landlord investigated the complaint about flooring, to allow it to reach an informed conclusion, about its position in relation to the lease, mediation or any other potential remedies.

66   The resident said the noise from the floor caused “years of severe antisocial behaviour”. The lack of a robust investigation into this issue has caused the resident some degree of distress and the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord has dealt with the matter appropriately. This amounts to maladministration.

Complaint handling

67   The resident first raised issues with the landlord relating to noise and leaks in May 2019. The landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour in June 2019 and reported the issues relating to the leaks had been repaired to prevent future leaks. It did not address the noise issues.

68   In November 2019 due to ongoing issues the resident asked to make a formal complaint. This was not recorded despite the resident clearly expressing dissatisfaction.

69   Once a complaint is recorded it is good practice for one person or team to take ownership of it to ensure the best service for the complainant. The landlord has a team set up to deal with complaints and an online process to register them. In this case the resident emailed the landlord expressly asking to make a complaint. There is no evidence he was directed to the online reporting process or told the correct email address to forward his complaint to. As a result although the resident thought he had raised a complaint, it was not recorded by the landlord. The landlord missed the opportunity to record a formal complaint, or direct the resident appropriately, and as such there was no control of the case. The resident was instead told to contact several different departments. The lack of ownership and clarity would have been the cause of confusion for the resident.

70   An official complaint was not opened by the landlord until 13 December 2021, following intervention from the Service. During the intervening time the landlord had not resolved the issues to the resident’s satisfaction as he continued to raise concerns.

71   The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at part B defines complaints. It states:

A complaint shall be defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.

The resident does not have to use the word complaint in order for it to be treated as such.

72   As such, the landlord should have opened a formal complaint sooner, and it failed to do so. This is a failure to adhere to its own complaints handling policy, and the Code.

73   The stage one response was issued on 20 January 2022 (21 working days after the complaint was opened). The landlord’s policy states that responses should be provided within 15 working days, but this timeframe can be extended. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to agree an extension with the resident once it became apparent that it would not be able to meet the original deadline. That the landlord did not take such steps was a further failing, and a missed opportunity.

74   The landlord did not investigate the resident’s concerns about noise transference or take steps to inspect Flat A. The stage one response suggested mediation but there is no evidence the landlord discussed this with either party at the time. Having suggested a potential remedy, the landlord should have asked the parties if they were willing to participate and tried to encourage their participation. Failing to do so made the suggestion an empty gesture and did not show a willingness on the part of the landlord to help its residents. This weakens the confidence and trust the resident has that the landlord will do the right thing and is a failing in its complaints handling.

75   Following communications between the landlord and resident and then the resident and the Ombudsman, on 9 June 2022 we asked it to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process.

76   The landlord issued its response the following day. When a resident complains at stage 2, this is an opportunity for the landlord to look again at the issues. It can consider it position and where appropriate put things right. Where there may be a failing it can then start rebuilding trust with the resident.

77   At stage 2 the landlord’s policy states the relevant service area have 20 days to conduct its review. The review should have considered if further investigation was warranted and once complete sent its findings to the Director. The policy states the stage 2 response should detail the review findings and outcome and should be sent to the resident by the Director.

78   In this case there is no evidence the landlord considered if further investigation was warranted and it took less than 24 hours to conduct its review, draft its response and send it to the resident. The response was sent by the Housing and Tenancy Service Manager and there is no evidence this was considered by the Director. The failure to fully consider the resident’s complaint and follow the stage 2 process was unreasonable.

79   In its stage 2 response the landlord stated it had failed to escalate prior to the Ombudsman’s intervention as it could not find any evidence the resident had asked for it to be reviewed. The Service has not seen an email specifically asking for escalation however there is evidence to show that the resident remained unhappy and the issues were unresolved.

80   The landlord’s policy states if the resident does not believe their complaint was investigated properly or if the response was unclear, unhelpful or incomplete, they can request a further review of the complaint at stage 2. As the resident stated he felt issues were unresolved it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought clarification from the resident as to whether he wished to escalate his complaint. There is no evidence it did this and that is unreasonable.

81   When the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it incorrectly signposted the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).  This did not cause any detriment to the resident in this case as he was already in contact with the Service, however this was incorrect. The landlord in this case is a local authority and therefore its template letters may contain details of both the Service and the LGSCO; however, the landlord should take steps to ensure that residents are signposted correctly.

Determination

82   In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of noise transference from the upstairs property when the washing machine was in use.

83   In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of water leaks in the kitchen.

84   In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of drain blockages and the backflow of water in the property.

85   In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about hard floor covering being installed by his neighbour.

86   In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

87   Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:

1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this case, comprised of:
   1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the reports of noise transference when the washing machine was in use.
   2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the issue relating to water leaks in the kitchen ceiling.
   3. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the drain blockage causing wastewater and soap suds to backflow into the resident’s shower, toilet and sink.
   4. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about hard floor covering being installed.
   5. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling.
3. Conduct a review of this case so that it can understand where the failings occurred, and how similar errors may be prevented from recurring in the future. The review should be carried out by a senior manager, and the outcome shared with the Service.
4. The landlord must complete the Self-Assessment tool accompanying the Spotlight Report on noise complaints, which can be found on our website.
5. Issue complaints handling staff with a reminder of the provisions set out in its complaint handling policy, and the Code.
6. Provide the resident with information about its building’s insurer, and how he may make a claim for damage under its cover relating to the leaks in the kitchen ceiling.
7. Ask the resident and neighbour if they would participate in mediation.
8. Conduct a review of the flooring used by the neighbour in Flat A and establish if measures could be put in place to reduce the noise transference, for example noise damping underlay.
9. Check the neighbour’s washing machine is installed correctly and if sound deadening mats could be installed under it to help reduce the noise the resident has complained about.