London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202312737)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312737

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

06 September 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 reports of noise transference from the property above.
2. This Service will also investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has held a lease with the landlord since 2016. The property is a ground floor flat in a converted Victorian house. The landlord is the freeholder of the resident’s property and the property above.
4. There has been a history of noise transference between the properties prior to 2019. In 2019 when the property became vacant the landlord provided carpets throughout the property above to reduce the sound transmission. In April 2023, the property above the resident became vacant again. The resident contacted the landlord and asked it to carry out sound insulation works while the property was vacant. The landlord said it had inspected the property and had not identified any structural issues. It said it would not carry out any soundproofing works. It also removed the carpets from the property.
5. In May 2023 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the issue. He said it had not called him back on several occasions and had not responded to his concerns about removing the carpets or the condition of the floor. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord said it would inspect the flooring but would not carry out any soundproofing works. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to stage 2.
6. In June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised it had not met its customer service standards. It said that poor sound insulation was a notified defect on the property lease, and it would not take any further action. It offered £250 compensation for failing to meet its customer service standards.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and escalated the complaint to this Service. To resolve the issue the resident considers there should be an independent survey of the floorboards of the property and works carried out to resolve the noise transference.
8. In August 2024 the resident advised this Service the property is void.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of noise transference from the property above.

9. The records show a history of noise transference issues between the properties since prior to 2019. In 2019 the tenant of the upstairs property moved out. The records show the landlord and resident discussed the sound transmission issues during the void period. As a result of these discussions the landlord installed underlay and carpets in various rooms of the property. This was good practice because it does not appear the landlord was obligated to do this. The records provided show the resident informed the landlord that he had experienced a reduction of noise but was still negatively impacted by noise transmission from the kitchen.
10. In January 2023 the property above the resident became void again. As part of its void works the landlord removed the carpets and underlay from the property. The records show the resident contacted the landlord by telephone on at least 7 occasions between January and April 2023 informing it of the negative impact on him of removing the floor coverings. On each occasion the resident was told he would be contacted within 10 working days, but he did not receive a call back. This was unreasonable and not in line with its customer service standards. The landlord’s repeated service failures caused frustration, distress, and inconvenience.
11. On 25 April 2023 the neighbourhood officer contacted the resident. They arranged to meet the resident at the property to carry out a ‘sound test.’ This was an appropriate step to take in the circumstances. The officer found there was noise transference from the property above. The records provided show the officer noted other defects with the floorboards during the sound test. The attending officer reported the issues to the department dealing with the vacant property.
12. The landlord informed the resident that its policy meant it was required to remove carpets where they were not deemed to be in good enough condition to provide to a new resident. While the landlord was acting in accordance with its voids policy and procedure it appears not to have considered at any stage whether it should replace these in view of the longstanding noise transference issues impacting the resident. This was unreasonable given that it knew the carpets and underlay helped minimise the impact of noise transference.
13. On 2 May 2023, the resident made a stage 1 complaint. He complained he not been contacted as promised, the structural issues with the floor had not been investigated, and his concerns were not being responded to appropriately.
14. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord emailed the resident 2 days later (the landlord’s complaint handling has been investigated later in this report). It said it would not carry out soundproofing works but would carry out a survey of the floor structure. This Service has considered the landlord’s position that it would not carry out any soundproofing works when it had not yet assessed the issues, was not a reasonable response. An objective approach would have been to survey the property first and then make a decision about whether it needed to carry out any works. The landlord could have considered providing an anti-vibration mat under the white goods or installing acoustic underlay in the kitchen. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Noise complaints ‘Time to be heard’ published in 2022, reiterates the potential for these smaller measures to prevent complaints should not be underestimated. This Service finds the landlord ruled out the idea of soundproofing measures at an early stage and prior to its inspection of the property. This was unfair and unreasonable.
15. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and emailed several members of the landlord’s staff. In response the landlord informed him that it would not be carrying out an independent survey of the floor structure. It said its voids team would do this. It said if he had any concerns about the joists and structure of the floor, he could instruct an independent survey and then provide the evidence of structural issues to its insurance team or seek advice from his own building’s insurer. This communication conflicted with its stage 1 complaint response it issued a few days earlier. The landlord’s disorganised approach would have been confusing and undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord. Additionally, this Service finds the landlord’s position that he could instruct his own survey prior to it having carried out its own inspection was not a reasonable response to the matters raised. As the freeholder of the property above the landlord had a duty to promptly investigate issues reported to it.
16. On 18 May 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He informed the landlord that he and his partner were anxious and distressed about the prospect of a new resident moving into the property without floor coverings in place. He provided the landlord with the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report ‘Time to be heard’ published in October 2022. He asked the landlord to consider the recommendations in the report. He expressed his view that the landlord was ignoring his concerns and treating him with disdain.
17. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that poor sound insultation was a notified defect on the property lease. While this might be a relevant fact it does not absolve the landlord from investigating issues when they are reported. It referred to the fact that the resident had recently moved his bedroom to under the kitchen of the property above. It stated that noise transference from the kitchen had only become an issue since the relocation of the bedroom. This was not correct as the records show the resident had been reporting what he considered to be unreasonable noise from the kitchen prior to 2019, and prior to the change in layout of the property. It said that it had carried out inspections and visits (it did not provide the dates or evidence of these). It said it did not feel the issues had worsened. It said it would be the new resident’s responsibility to install floor coverings in the property. It apologised for its communication failings and poor customer service and offered £250 in compensation. The landlord did not acknowledge the Housing Ombudsman’s report provided by the resident, nor his suggestions about what solutions and materials could be considered for the kitchen. This Service finds the landlord failed to give any consideration to the resident’s suggestions or the Spotlight report.
18. Looking at everything together, the landlord did not respond to resident’s concerns about the condition of the floor or the removal of the carpets for over 12 weeks. It ruled out the possibility of soundproofing works at an early stage and before it inspected the property. It said it would carry out an independent survey but then changed its position a few days later and stated an internal team would do this. This was not unreasonable, however the landlord has not provided any evidence or inspection reports to demonstrate that it carried out the inspection.
19. Given there was a long history of noise transmission reports and complaints between the properties, the landlord acted unreasonably by not considering the impact of removing the carpets and underlay. The landlord’s approach also provided the opportunity for the incoming resident to choose to install hardwood flooring, or leave the floorboards uncovered which would have increased the noise transmission further. The landlord did not take a holistic view of the circumstances of the case and failed to remember that it had installed the carpets in 2019 as a soundproofing measure. It unreasonably maintained its position that it would not carry out any soundproofing measures when in the circumstances it would have been reasonable to consider these.
20. This Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of noise transference from the property above. The landlord offered £250 for its failings relating to its customer service standards, however, this investigation has identified additional failings in its handling of the matters which caused distress and inconvenience. Having regard to the remedies guidance where maladministration exists, this Service makes an order for additional £250 compensation to be paid to the resident.
21. We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In October 2022 we published our Spotlight on noise complaints. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

22. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint by sending a brief email 2 days later saying it would organise a survey. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code applicable at the time states the landlord’s complaint response must confirm the following in writing to the resident at completion of stage 1:
    1. The complaint stage.
    2. The complaint definition.
    3. The decision on the complaint.
    4. The reasons for any decisions made.
    5. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
    6. Details of any outstanding actions.
    7. Details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
23. The landlord’s email response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint was overly brief and did not contain any of the information prescribed by the complaint handling code. This Service finds the landlord did not carry out a complaint investigation but treated the resident’s complaint as a service request. This was inappropriate given the clear expression of dissatisfaction expressed by the resident.
24. Additionally, this Service finds the landlord did not give due care and attention to the content of the resident’s stage 1 complaint because it did not acknowledge or respond to 2 of the 3 parts of the complaint. These were, he had not been called back on several occasions, and the feeling of his concerns being ignored. The landlord’s failure to respond to these lacked customer focus and was likely to confirm his view that his concerns were not being taken seriously. The complaint handling code states ‘Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
25. At stage 2 the landlord acknowledged its customer service failings and made an offer of compensation to put things right, however this should have happened at stage 1. The landlord’s handling of the stage 1 complaint was inappropriate and caused inconvenience and distress.
26. This Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and makes an order for £100 compensation to be paid.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of noise transference from the property above.
28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

29. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of the matters.
    2. Pay the resident £600 in compensation. This comprises:
       1. £250 it offered at stage 2 if this has not already been paid.
       2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified.
       3. £100 for the failings in its complaint handling.
30. The landlord’s surveyor should carry out a survey of the floorboards, joists, and substructure of the floor. It should document its findings and carry out any repairs needed. It should share the findings with the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

31. The landlord should review its handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint and consider whether it should carry out ‘complaint handling’ training.