Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202128111)

Back to Top

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128111

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

26 June 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. handling of reports of noise nuisance.
    2. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 1-bedroom first floor flat.
  2. From October 2021 to December 2021 the resident reported to the landlord tapping and hammering throughout the day and the early morning hours. She believed the noise came from a second floor flat in a neighbouring building. On 21 and 30 December 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint. She said she had not received a response from the landlord and questioned why it had closed her case. She added that the ongoing noise affected her wellbeing and felt it could be a health and safety issue such as loose pipes. On 19 January 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said it would investigate her report in line with its antisocial behaviour policy (ASB) rather than a complaint.
  3. The resident continued to report and send diary sheets about the same noise issue from January 2022 to April 2022. She also raised another formal complaint on 8 February 2022 regarding possible noise from the neighbour’s toilet and fan. On 14 April 2022 the landlord’s contractor visited a variety of flats many of which confirmed they had also heard the noise. In response, they tested all the taps and toilets within the properties and found no issues. The landlord subsequently signposted the resident to the local council’s environmental health team (EH).
  4. Following further complaints from the resident and contact from this Service the landlord issued another two stage 1 responses in August 2022 and November 2022. Its responses outlined what actions it had taken to try and resolve the noise nuisance and awarded £125 compensation, comprised of £50 for delays in responding to the complaint and £75 for the delay in actioning the matter and the inconvenience caused in its November 2022 response. Unhappy with these responses the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
  5. On 22 March 2023, following contact from this Service, the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said:
    1. That following a joint visit with EH the ‘knocking’ noise was not considered to be a nuisance and it was unable to witness the other noise above the bedroom.
    2. It had inspected her neighbour’s toilet system and could not find the source of the noise.
    3. It had suggested a letter drop to the residents of the block and the neighbouring building and had followed up with all her neighbours who said they had not experienced the reported noise.
    4. It had not received any further reports of noise from the resident since its visit in August 2022.
    5. It apologised for the service failures and acknowledged it needed to action her concerns more quickly and keep residents informed of progress.
    6. It would offer £100 compensation comprised of, £75 made in its stage 1 response and £25 for the delay in its stage 2 response.
  6. In the resident’s referral to this Service, she was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling and the delays in its handling of her noise reports and added that the situation had caused her health problems. She also remained unhappy that the landlord had referred the matter to EH. As an outcome the resident wanted more compensation and for the landlord to follow best practice guidelines when dealing with this type of issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said that the landlord’s handling of this complaint has affected her health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but this Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes. 
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
  4. The landlord’s domestic noise policy states that when it receives a report it will advise residents on what tools are available to them, which can include advice and support from its housing management team. Further, it states ‘where a resident feels they are dealing with excessive noise nuisance, (noise made outside the hours of 7am-11pm). We advise that they discuss this with their local authority/ environmental health’.
  5. Following the resident’s initial report of noise nuisance in October 2021 the landlord failed to provide a full response to the resident within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s record showed that it was not until the resident raised a formal complaint on 21 December 2021, over 2 months later that the landlord responded to her. This was despite informing the resident on 9 November 2021 that it would respond to her within 5 working days. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who regularly chased the landlord for a response.
  6. Furthermore, the landlord’s response in December 2021 was unsatisfactory. It stated that one of the resident’s neighbours had also raised this issue and that it had written to the resident concerned. It added that it was monitoring the situation with the police and other agencies. Yet it did not explain what it was going to do next, or what its expectations were of the resident. Moreover, it failed to acknowledge the effect of this matter on her. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
  7. Indeed, the resident sent the landlord regular emails and diary sheets describing a tapping/hammering noise which she believed may have been coming from another flat’s toilet or pipes. Despite this, the landlord failed to take any meaningful action until the middle of April 2022 when it instructed its plumbing contractor to investigate the pipework of the other flats. This was several months after the resident’s formal complaint. While this was a reasonable step for the landlord to take it is unclear why it did not act sooner.
  8. Although the contractor checked all the taps and toilets in each flat and found no issues, they reported back to the landlord that at least 2 other flats had heard what sounded like a ‘machine knocking around’. Yet the landlord did not investigate the matter further, instead, it signposted the resident to EH. While it was in line with its policy for it to do so, it should have considered if it needed to take any further action considering other residents had also witnessed the noise. However, there is no evidence that this happened.
  9. Nevertheless, the landlord acted fairly by agreeing to the recommendations made by EH after they visited the resident’s property in August 2022. They asked the landlord to inspect a specific flat’s toilet system which they believed the noise may be from. In addition, the landlord’s records indicated that it sent out warning letters to neighbours. These were reasonable steps to take and demonstrated a willingness from the landlord to explore all avenues to resolve the matter. Having said that, the resident had to prompt the landlord in October 2022 for an update on its findings following its visit to this specific flat. This would have caused frustration to the resident who had to continually chase the landlord for updates throughout.
  10. In December 2022, following a period of quiet, the resident sent diary sheets to the landlord. Although, it appeared these were historic sheets it failed to acknowledge them until February 2023. It said that the log sheets were not clear of the impact the noise was having on the resident and asked her to complete more diary sheets. This was unhelpful. The resident had consistently informed the landlord that the noise was affecting her sleep and general wellbeing. Furthermore, she said that she had visited her doctor due to these issues. Its response demonstrated a lack of empathy and put the ouns back on the resident. This was inappropriate as the resident had already provided numerous diary sheets and emails to the landlord who should have been aware of the impact this situation was having on her.
  11. While the landlord did act and offer support to the resident in line with its policy, its actions were delayed and its communication with the resident was poor, often failing to respond and provide timely updates to the resident. This led to her having to chase the landlord on multiple occasions.
  12. Although this Service acknowledges that this was a complex noise nuisance case that would have been difficult to resolve it is the Ombudsman’s view that the £75 compensation offered in the landlord’s final response for ‘delays in actioning the matter’ did not go far enough in putting things right for the resident for the failures identified. This amounts to service failure and orders are made below for remedy.
  13. The resident informed this Service in June 2024 that the noise nuisance re-started about a month ago and that the landlord sent a warning letter to the specific flat. While the landlord appears to have acted reasonably in this respect, it should continue to respond to the resident’s concerns in line with its policies and procedures and a recommendation is made below.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint 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’. It adds that it will formally respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) states if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. In instances where a landlord declines to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating as well as the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision.
  3. The resident first raised a formal complaint on 21 December 2021, yet the landlord refused to raise a complaint saying that it would deal with the matter as ASB. This was inappropriate. The resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction at not receiving a response to her original noise report in October 2021. She was also unhappy that the matter had been closed on her ‘landlord account’. The landlord should have therefore responded to her concerns through its formal complaints process. The landlord failed to act in line with its policy which would have caused time and trouble to the resident who had to raise another complaint on 30 December 2021 about the same issues.
  4. On this occasion the landlord did respond broadly in line with its policy timescales. However, its response was lacking in detail and failed to fully address the resident’s concerns. In particular, it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in responding to her original report and once again, said it would deal with the matter as ASB rather than a formal complaint. This again was inappropriate and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord was not listening to her concerns.
  5. Furthermore, when the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the matter it failed to escalate her complaint. Instead, it issued two more stage 1 responses. This was inappropriate and contrary to ‘The Code’. Furthermore, it is notable that in April 2022 the landlord incorrectly refused to escalate her complaint. These were serious failings that delayed getting matters resolved for the resident. Moreover, it did not acknowledge these errors in its final response. This demonstrated a failure to identify and learn from its mistakes.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was unsatisfactory. It issued three stage 1 responses and failed to escalate the complaint when asked by the resident and this Service. The landlord eventually issued its stage 2 final response in March 2023 over 14 months after the resident’s December 2021 complaint. This was unacceptable and the landlord missed multiple opportunities to escalate and respond to the complaint within its policy timescales. This led to the resident having to approach this Service on several occasions for assistance.
  7. Furthermore, it appeared that the landlord failed to adequately review its November 2022 stage 1 response, offering the resident less compensation in its final response. This would have caused confusion to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord had not thoroughly investigated the complaint. Overall, this Service considers that the failures identified amount to maladministration and orders are made below for remedy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports noise nuisance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £350 comprised of:
      1. £100 as offered in its final response if it had not already done so.
      2. A further £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance.
      3. A further £175 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. Review the handling of this case, with reference to the failings identified in this report, to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review. This order is made in line with paragraph 54g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should respond to the resident’s ongoing noise nuisance concerns in line with its policies and procedures.
  2. The landlord should review and assess itself against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise.