London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202321375)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321375

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. reports of anti-social behaviour, including noise nuisance and noise transference.
2. the resident’s request for rehousing on medical grounds.
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a tenancy with the landlord which began on 22 September 1986. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident said she has dyslexia, Electro-Hypersensitivity Syndrome (‘EHS’), Radiofrequency Syndrome, Low Frequency Syndrome and mental health difficulties, including depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (‘PTSD’). The resident explained her health conditions make her particularly vulnerable to noise.
The resident said she has been experiencing and reporting noise nuisance from a neighbouring property since 2001. The resident said that a new tenant moved into the neighbouring property in March 2023. The resident said she reported noise nuisance from the neighbouring property since this date.
The resident’s reports of noise nuisance included banging, walking, shouting, talking and crying from the neighbouring property. The resident said she believed the noise levels were heightened due to poor insulation between the properties.
On 21 July 2023, the resident obtained a report by an Occupational Therapist (‘OT’). In summary, the report said:
1. the property was not suitable and required works to bring it to a medically safe standard.
2. the resident’s health continued to deteriorate.
3. although it was not possible to prevent EMF pollution, steps could be taken to reduce the impact to the resident’s health.
4. a sine tamer unit should be installed to reduce exposure to high voltage transient spikes.
5. there would be challenges to source an EMF free property, but the resident required rehousing to an area with lesser frequencies.
6. as well as an OT input, an EMF trained professional would be required to provide guidance about the area of future properties.
7. a qualified EMF engineer would need to explore the internal wiring and earth to neutral bonding in the current property and any prospective property.
8. the resident would benefit from a single level property with a level access shower.
9. as a short-term measure, the resident would benefit from wall shielding in the property. However, the preferred long-term solution would be rehousing the resident.
On 31 July 2023, the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman and said it had raised a stage 1 complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. On 9 October 2023, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 23 October 2023.
On 19 October 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. she had contacted the landlord about ASB, noise nuisance and her health conditions for several years.
2. she considered the property was unsuitable for her due to her medical needs.
3. she had obtained an OT assessment in May 2019 which recommended measures to be taken to adapt the property or move to a more suitable property.
4. she had provided additional medical evidence to the landlord for consideration.
5. she was offered a property in September 2022, but this was unsuitable for her needs.
6. she had complained about ASB in 2019, and the Ombudsman made a determination about this complaint in December 2020.
7. she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB.
8. she wanted all communication from the landlord to be made via telephone or written correspondence.
On 14 December 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord with a further copy of her complaint which she sent in October 2023.
On 18 December 2023, the resident raised a further complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. she wanted to be rehoused due to her medical needs.
2. she had been experiencing Anti-Social Behaviour (‘ASB’) and noise nuisance from her neighbour.
On 22 January 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It explained:
1. the resident was previously on a rehousing list before it closed. The landlord said it had made 2 offers of accommodation, which the resident refused due to the suitability for her needs. The landlord said the resident made an application to be rehoused due to medical needs in October 2023. The landlord said it rejected the resident’s application on 29 November 2023 as she did not meet the criteria for rehousing.
2. the resident would need to submit further supporting medical evidence that highlighted that her current home posed a risk to the household.
3. the resident could explore a mutual exchange or a “home swapper”, and she was also on the housing register for the local authority.
4. it had opened an ASB case in August 2023. The landlord said it had investigated the resident’s reports. It closed the ASB case on 17 January 2024 as it had not received any further reports of noise nuisance or ASB since November 2023.
5. it had offered the resident £20 compensation for the delay in responding to her complaint and £20 for the time and effort in chasing her complaint.
On 29 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and said she was unhappy with its offer of compensation, and she felt it had not taken into consideration her longstanding reports of ASB.
On 1 February 2024, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 8 February 2024. The resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns about ASB and noise nuisance, which were ongoing, and she wanted the landlord to investigate the issue.
On 8 February 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained:
1. the resident’s Neighbourhood Housing Lead (‘NHL’) had investigated the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord closed the ASB case on 17 January 2024, due to no further reports.
2. it would inform the resident’s support officer of her recent concerns regarding ASB.
3. it had arranged to have a meeting with the resident’s NHL on 29 February 2024. The landlord also proposed mediation with the resident and her neighbour. The landlord suggested that the resident also had someone to support her while addressing her concerns with her neighbour.
4. it had enquired about adaptation works to the resident’s property and was “yet to receive information”.
5. it had collated information regarding suggested works to the property and the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord said it had presented this information to an area supervisor for consideration.
6. it would inspect the resident’s property regarding her noise concerns to see if it could carry out any works to support the resident.
7. there were delays in responding to the resident about noise concerns and works to the property, and her enquiries were not always managed effectively.
8. it had offered 2 properties to the resident, which she had declined due to suitability for her needs. The resident made an application to be rehoused in October 2023. The landlord said it rejected the resident’s request in November 2023.
9. the resident would need to provide further supporting medical evidence that highlighted that remaining in her current home posed a risk to her household. Upon receipt of this information, the landlord said it would send the resident’s medical assessment for further review to an independent medical advisor. The landlord said an option the resident may wish to consider was a mutual exchange or home swapper.
10. it would arrange for an officer to support the resident to see if she needed to be assessed by a panel to be put on the rehousing list.
11. it had signposted the resident to support with mental health, medical conditions and vulnerabilities.
12. it had discussed the resident’s complaint with senior managers to enhance customer service moving forward.
13. it had offered £400 compensation to the resident, which comprised of:
  1. £100 for the time and effort in resolving the complaint.
  2. £100 for poor complaint handling.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
In referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. she felt the landlord had not considered her concerns about soundproofing and noise transference. The resident said the landlord has not inspected the property to determine if it could carry out soundproofing works to support her.
2. the landlord did not manage her expectations and communication effectively.
3. she wanted the landlord to minimise the sound issues by soundproofing the property, including the flooring and windows. In the long term, the resident said she wanted to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident has referred to other complaints she has raised with the landlord, including repairs to the shower, gulley and front door, as well as issues with the electrics in the property.
The resident’s complaints about repairs to the shower, gulley, front door and electrics have followed separate complaint procedures. The resident has referred these issues separately to the Ombudsman for investigation. Accordingly, this investigation will consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint on 19 October 2023.
The resident also brought a previous complaint in 2019 to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. The Ombudsman determined that complaint on 1 December 2020. Paragraph 42.l of the Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: l. seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.”

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident had an ongoing dispute with the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB. This continued after the previous complaint was determined on 1 December 2020.
The resident said she has complained about ASB and noise nuisance since 2001. The resident said she also complained about the suitability of the property prior to 2018.
Paragraph 42.b of the Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: b. were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.”

Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.”

There is no evidence that the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about her reports of ASB or the suitability of the property in 2001, or that this complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Additionally, there is no evidence that the resident brought a complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation within 12 months of it exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The Ombudsman cannot consider the issues it has already determined. Additionally, the Ombudsman will only consider complaints which have been raised within a reasonable time of the events occurring. Therefore, the focus of this investigation will be from October 2022 (12 months before the resident’s complaint) to 8 February 2024, when the complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.
In correspondence with the landlord, the resident indicated that she wished to be moved permanently into a different property. The Ombudsman could not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing.
The resident said the issues in her property have had a significant impact on her physical and mental well-being. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it is not within this service’s role to determine whether the property conditions impacted the resident’s health. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and noise nuisance.

The landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’), including noise nuisance and noise transference

The landlord’s ASB policy provides for the following:
1. it requires the landlord to work to prevent ASB by a range of means, including forming links and developing positive relationships with partners.
2. residents must acknowledge that day to day activities cannot be avoided and, whilst the behaviour of another resident is frustrating, it is not reasonable to place restrictions on their usual enjoyment of their home.
3. it will assign a priority for the case based on the type of ASB reported.
4. it will treat those affected by ASB sympathetically and sensitively, keeping in regular contact with the complainant and seeking to identify any vulnerabilities or support needs and adjusting its approach as necessary.
5. it will take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to prevent the problem escalating, for example by sending warning letters, using mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts. If necessary, legal enforcement action will be considered.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints recommended that:
1. landlords should have a triage methodology for identifying whether a noise report should be handled under the ASB policy or the good neighbourhood management policy. This should include a recognition that the time the noise occurred has a bearing on whether the noise is anti-social in nature.
2. landlords should work with other agencies, including the police and environmental health, when responding to noise reports.
3. residents must be clearly told if their noise report is being handled within the good neighbourhood management policy or is considered to be ASB.
In this case, it is not disputed that the resident was complaining of noise nuisance and noise transference, and the landlord’s records show that it acknowledged this. However, the resident also said that she felt the neighbour had deliberately and intentionally initiated noise to cause her distress. Whilst this service cannot, based on the evidence available, establish whether the resident’s reports of noise constituted ASB, this service will consider how the landlord responded to the reports it received and seek to establish whether it acted reasonably appropriately, and whether it treated the resident fairly.
The resident said she reported noise nuisance and ASB from a neighbouring property in March 2023, when a new tenant moved into the property. The Ombudsman has not been provided with details of the resident’s initial reports in March 2023. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to assess whether the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s concerns between March and May 2023 was reasonable and in accordance with its ASB policy. This was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
The evidence shows that between May and July 2023, the landlord discussed the resident’s reports of noise nuisance with her. During this time, the resident also provided the landlord with an Occupational Therapist (‘OT’) report and a report about her EHS. The landlord liaised with the resident about rehousing options. The landlord also suggested it could not provide soundproofing as an option in the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 August 2023 and said that her neighbour was slamming doors and speaking loudly, and their baby was crying. The resident explained that this was affecting her physical and mental wellbeing, and she was exhausted from fatigue and a lack of sleep. The resident also said that she regularly contacted the local authority and its Environmental Health team to report the noise nuisance.
The landlord said it opened an ASB case in August 2023. The landlord said it had engaged in “active communication” with both parties to “reduce tensions” between them. However, it is not clear from the evidence exactly what action the landlord took to “reduce tensions”. The landlord said it did not receive any reports of ASB or noise nuisance between November 2023 and January 2024. It therefore closed the resident’s ASB case on 17 January 2024.
In its stage 2 response on 8 February 2024, the landlord said:
1. it would inform the resident’s support officer of her recent concerns regarding ASB.
2. it had proposed mediation with the resident and her neighbour.
3. it had enquired about adaptation works to the resident’s property.
4. it had collated information regarding suggested works to the property and the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord said it had presented this information to an area supervisor for consideration.
5. it would inspect the resident’s property regarding her noise concerns to see if it could carry out any works to support the resident.
Between February and July 2024, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 11 occasions to report further noise nuisance. The reports included banging, shouting, talking and crying from a neighbouring property. The resident said this was having a detrimental effect on her mental wellbeing, and she often had to leave her property to escape the noise.
The resident also raised concerns about the lack of insulation in the property, which she said she felt was contributing to the noise transference. The evidence shows that the landlord recorded the resident’s concerns between February and July 2024, but it is not clear exactly what steps it took to resolve them. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to assess whether the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in line with its policies and procedures. This was not appropriate and a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
Additionally, there is no evidence that between August 2023 and August 2024, that the landlord:
1. liaised with the Environmental Health team to determine if the noise levels amounted to a statutory nuisance.
2. considered the level of insulation that should have been presented based on the build date or conversion date of the property, and what level of protection from noise that ought to have given the resident.
3. managed the resident’s expectations on whether the issues she was complaining of were general household noise or ASB, in accordance with its ASB policy.
4. informed the resident of the outcome of its enquiries for adaptation works in the property, as per the actions set out in its stage 2 response. The resident said the landlord has not completed any adaptation works in the property.
5. explored alternative funding options for soundproofing the property, such as a disabled facilities grant (‘DFG’). Although the landlord did not promise this in its stage 2 response, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore the possibility of applying for a DFG, given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
6. updated the resident on the outcome of its discussions with the area supervisor, as per the actions set out in its stage 2 response.
7. inspected the resident’s property regarding her noise concerns to see if it could carry out any works to support the resident, as per the actions set out in its stage 2 response. The resident said the landlord never inspected the property in 2024.
8. carried out a risk assessment or action plan for all parties at the start of the reported ASB and at significant milestones.
The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states that landlords must set out what will happen and by when in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. There is no evidence that the landlord followed through with its actions to completion. This was a failure by the landlord and likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s complaint.
In completing risk assessments and focusing on the harm caused, landlords can ensure that they can put measures in place at the first opportunity and reduce the impact of the ASB. The landlord should have considered the impact on the resident given the resident’s vulnerabilities as well as regular communication with the resident using their preferred method and at an agreed frequency.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 August 2024. It said:
1. it had given the resident and her a neighbour a good neighbour agreement.
2. it had discussed the resident’s concerns with her neighbour.
3. it considered the behaviour from the neighbouring property “normal household behaviours”.
4. it would assess if it could put a case forward for a management move with a potential to rehouse the resident.
5. it would complete a surveyor request form within the next 5 working days to assess the resident’s concerns about poor insultation and determine whether there is anything further it could do to reduce the transfer of noise between households.
6. it would leave an ASB case open. The landlord asked the resident to report any further incidents and record these using a diary sheet.
The landlord’s decision to write to the resident to update her on the steps it had taken to resolve her concerns was reasonable. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not do this sooner, given the resident had reported ASB and noise nuisance 12 months prior. Had the landlord set out the steps it had taken to address the resident’s concerns sooner, and whether it considered the noise nuisance to be ASB, this would have better managed the resident’s expectations. This was a failure in the landlord’s service to the resident.
There was a delay of 6 months in the landlord requesting a survey of the property, given that it had already agreed to do this in its stage 2 response in February 2024. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the delay was unreasonable, given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the length of time that she had reported concerns about ASB and noise transference. Accordingly, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to arrange an inspection of the property to assess the resident’s concerns about noise transference and insulation levels.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint. The landlord has been aware for many years of the resident’s vulnerabilities which meant that the effects of the reported ASB were heightened. It is evident the landlord took some steps to try to establish the cause of the ASB, by arranging property visits, and more recently with providing both parties with a good neighbour agreement. However, it failed to follow through with the actions set out in its stage 2 response within a reasonable time.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing on medical grounds

The landlord’s allocations and lettings (housing management) policy says:
1. it will ensure that the needs of vulnerable residents are identified and assessed and will support vulnerable residents with rehousing applications.
2. residents can be added to the rehousing list if either the resident or an original member of their household has a significant medical need or disability which means that if their condition carries an immediate risk to life by remaining in their home, or if they cannot access parts of their home due to a medical condition that cannot be improved, or their home cannot be adapted, they may qualify.
3. the decision to rehouse residents and add residents to the rehousing list will be made by a Priority Needs Panel for Housing Management to assess rehousing applicants for permanent moves.
4. if a case is declined by the Priority Needs Panels, applicants will be allowed to submit an appeal request if they are unhappy with the decision.
The resident obtained an OT report on 21 July 2023 which recommended works to the property and that the resident should be rehoused.
The evidence shows that the landlord liaised with the resident about her rehousing options in July 2023, following receipt of the OT report. It also discussed the resident’s rehousing needs internally, to explore its current housing stock and other housing options such as a mutual exchange or support from the local authority. The landlord said it had difficulty sourcing a suitable property for the resident, which would meet her needs. However, it is unclear if it acted upon the OT recommendations for works to the resident’s current property.
The landlord said it had offered the resident 2 properties in 2021 and 2022, which she declined due to suitability for her needs. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the offers were suitable for the resident’s needs, based on the documentary evidence available. However, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained why it felt the properties were suitable and what information or evidence it had relied upon (such as the recommendations made in the OT report) to make its decision. It is not clear if the landlord clearly communicated the offers of accommodation to the resident, including the reasons why it felt it was suitable, so that she could make an informed decision about it.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 November 2023 and said it had declined the resident’s request for rehousing based on medical grounds. The landlord said it recognised a medical need, but it did not meet the threshold for rehousing. However, the landlord did not explain:
1. what the threshold was for rehousing.
2. why she had not met the threshold for rehousing.
3. what its “qualifying criteria” was.
4. what medical evidence it had considered to make its decision.
5. how the resident could appeal the decision.
  This was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s allocations and lettings policy.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said:
1. the resident would need to provide further supporting medical evidence that highlighted that remaining in her current home posed a risk to her household. Upon receipt of this information, the landlord would send the resident’s medical assessment for further review to an independent medical advisor. The landlord also said an option the resident may wish to consider would be to explore a mutual exchange or home swapper.
2. it would arrange for an officer to support the resident to see if she needed to be assessed by a panel to be put on the rehousing list.
3. it had signposted the resident to support with mental health, medical conditions and vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s communication around the purpose of the medical evidence could have been clearer. There is no evidence that it clearly explained to the resident that the assessment was not just of her medical needs per se but specifically how those medical issues directly impacted on her housing needs. For example, a doctor’s letter confirming a diagnosis does not show how the health issue directly impacts on the resident’s housing situation. Had the landlord made this link clearer, the resident would have understood what medical evidence she needed to provide and the basis on which it would be assessed.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that it would have been frustrating for the resident to be informed that the outcome she wanted could not be offered at the time. However, the Ombudsman also considers that the landlord was entitled to make a decision about the resident’s rehousing application in accordance with its policies and procedures. It is unclear if the resident has explored a mutual exchange or home swapper. It would be reasonable for the landlord to provide further details about these options, including how the resident can apply to them.
The resident said she has resubmitted medical evidence to the landlord. On 16 August 2024, the landlord said it would assess if it could put a case forward for a management move with a potential to rehouse the resident.
It would be reasonable for the landlord to consider any additional medical evidence the resident has submitted and write to the resident with the outcome of its enquiries for a managed move. The landlord should also confirm what medical evidence it requires from the resident in order to consider a managed move.
For the reasons noted above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint. While the landlord was entitled to make a decision about the resident’s rehousing application in accordance with its policies and procedures, it could have better communicated the process and outcome with the resident, given her vulnerabilities, and explained what she needed to provide for it to reassess her application.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. Landlords should respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
On 31 July 2023, the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman and said it had raised a stage 1 complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It is not clear when the resident first raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB.
On 9 October 2023, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 23 October 2023. It is not clear if the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within the timescale set out in the Code, as the Ombudsman has not been provided with any stage 1 response between July 2023 and October 2023.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to communicate with residents without the intervention of this service. Further, there is evidence that the resident had to chase for a response to her complaint on numerous occasions. There is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and updates them on the progress of their complaint. However, the evidence shows that the landlord did not do this.
The resident raised a further complaint to the landlord on 19 October 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 January 2024, which was 64 working days later. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. It also failed update the resident that its response would be outside of the timeframe set out in its complaint policy. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord did not appropriately acknowledge all of the issues raised in the resident’s complaint. For example, it did not address her concerns that the ASB had been ongoing for a considerable length of time. 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.
On 29 January 2024, the landlord noted that the resident was unhappy with its response and wished to escalate her complaint. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 February 2024. The landlord’s response was in line with the timescales set out in the Code.
The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord has apologised for the inconvenience caused, it failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity and taking steps to put things right.
The landlord offered the resident some compensation for the failures in its complaint handling. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the level of compensation does not reflect the failings identified above. As such, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’), including noise nuisance and noise transference.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing on medical grounds.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology.
2. pay additional compensation to the resident of £950 (£1,390 total) broken down as follows:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s communication with the resident about her rehousing application.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The total compensation is in addition to the compensation offered by the landlord during the complaint procedure (£1,390 total). The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident.

contact the resident to support her with any ongoing ASB or noise nuisance issues in line with its relevant policies and procedures. The landlord must:
1. assess whether any further incidents require investigation.
2. support the resident with its mediation process if required.
3. liaise with the Environmental Health team to determine if the noise levels amount to a statutory nuisance.
4. inform the resident of the outcome of its enquiries for adaptation works in the property, as per the actions set out in its stage 2 response.
5. update the resident on the outcome of its discussions with the area supervisor, as per the actions set out in its stage 2 response.
6. explore any alternative funding options for adaptations to the property, such as a disabled facilities grant (‘DFG’).
7. update the resident on its position regarding a management move with a potential to rehouse the resident.
8. update the resident on its position with rehousing based on a medical need, including whether the resident is able to resubmit any evidence, or what evidence it requires to consider an application.

The landlord must evidence that it is written to the resident with an update on the steps it has taken to address her concerns.

arrange an inspection of the property. Once the inspection is completed, the surveyor must provide a written report to the Ombudsman and the landlord within 10 working days of the inspection, which must:
1. address the resident’s concerns about poor insultation and determine whether there is anything further it could do to reduce the transfer of noise between households.
2. consider the level of insulation that should have been presented based on the build date or conversion date of the property, and what level of protection from noise that ought to have given the resident.
3. set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete the repairs.

The landlord must then use its best endeavours to ensure the works are completed within 28 days of the date of the inspection report, or such other later time specific in the report. The landlord must retain records of its actions to confirm it has employed its best endeavours.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 56 days of the date of this determination.