Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202303081)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303081

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 October 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s report of repair to her bathroom, including concerns about missed appointments and its communication with her.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of sound transference from the flat above and concerns about the safety of the property due to a related ceiling defect.
3. Handling of the resident’s transfer.
4. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 6 August 2012. The property is a 2 bedroom, first floor flat which the resident shares with her 2 sons. The property is a modern block built in 2012. The landlord’s records refer to the resident complaining about noise transference ‘soon after moving in.’

Scope

The resident raised a formal complaint about noise transference in February 2013, for which the landlord issued its final response in December 2013. This case was investigated by this Service and our determination, that the landlord’s actions had been ‘reasonable and satisfactory’, was issued on 9 January 2015.
The noise persisted and in October 2014 the landlord arranged for its professional services manager to attend with a contractor. Following this the matter was referred to the developer. The landlord’s records note that in 2015 it was agreed by its assets team and an independent surveyor that the property had a structural defect and that the problem was being caused by the movement/flexibility of the steel joists. The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord, about its response to her on-going issue of noise transference in her property. This was investigated by this Service and our determination of reasonable redress issued on 29 March 2017.
Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme also states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
The landlord’s records note that it agreed to offer a ‘like for like’ move and that, following refusal of ‘several’ direct offers, a decision was made to revoke the ‘like for like’ offer. The resident appealed this decision which was reviewed and the appeal rejected. In its response to the resident’s appeal, of 13 May 2021, the landlord advised that if the resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome, she could escalate her concerns, which it referred to as a complaint, to this Service.
There is no evidence that the resident sought to escalate this complaint to this Service within 12 months of the landlord’s final response. The resident’s first contact with this Service regarding the complaint considered in this report being 24 April 2023.
Paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were bought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the members complaints procedure.
Therefore, whilst the historical incidents set out above provide a contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation focuses on events that occurred between the resident’s contact with the landlord in early 2022, in which she reported that the noise transference had worsened, and the landlord’s ‘revised’ final response of 5 July 2023.

Summary of events

In early 2022, the resident reported that the noise transference from the flat above had become worse. The resident later complained to the landlord that she received no response to this contact, which she described as a complaint. This Service has seen no evidence of the resident’s contact in early 2022, however, the landlord has not disputed that this complaint was made.
In an internal email of 12 August 2022, the landlord’s housing options manager said that the issue of sound transference was not going to be resolved and so they believed that the best course of action was for the resident to bid for a suitable property.
The landlord’s repair records note that the resident reported ‘a terrible smell coming from her bath, sink and toilet’ on 10 August 2022. The landlord raised a job for its main contractor to ‘attend, investigate and unblock’.
On 31 August 2022, the resident’s housing officer emailed her with details of the landlord’s choice based letting scheme and the bidding process. The housing officer confirmed that the landlord would consider a direct offer if a suitable 2 bedroom property were identified during the voids process. They also said that they had sent a referral to the assets team to arrange a joint visit to both the resident’s and her upstairs neighbour’s property.
On 3 October 2022, the resident emailed her housing officer to complain that:
1. Although her case had been reviewed and she had been given a Band A:
  1. Her formal complaint of April 2022 had not been responded to.
  2. The timeframe for a surveyor to attend was unsatisfactory.
  3. She still had to live in a noisy environment where the defect to the building could potentially be a health and safety concern.
  4. The landlord had a duty of care to her family. The resident attached a copy of a letter from her sons’ headteacher, which she said stated that their living environment was a safeguarding concern.
2. In their email of 17 May 2022, the housing officer had informed her that the landlord’s asset lead felt a visit to her property was not needed given ‘the previous findings’. The resident said that she found it ‘concerning’ that the housing officer was now asking the asset team to investigate the defect. The resident asked that the housing officer explain the purpose of the visit and confirm whether it was ‘merely to update records or to remedy the defect.’
On 21 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say that, as she had had no response to her complaint about the noise transference and her transfer, she was left with no alternative but to ask that it be escalated to the next stage.
On 28 November 2022, the Housing Operations Manager emailed the resident to advise that they had provisionally booked the surveyor’s appointment for 14 December 2022. The resident responded to say that they had ‘penciled in the date.’
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 January 2023 to say that she received a text and email with an appointment for 29 December 2022 with regards to the smell from her bathroom. However, no contractor confirmed the appointment with her, and she had previously mentioned to the landlord that she would be away. She also asked for an update as to what the surveyor was intending to do about the noise transference from her neighbour’s flat.
The housing officer responded the same day to advise that they had been copied into emails from the surveyor requesting all the information and consultants details from previous investigations. The housing officer said that the surveyor was working towards trying to get the issue resolved and that as soon as they had further information they would get back to the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 February 2023, in which it:
1. Apologised for 3 failed visits to investigate the source of the smell in the resident’s bathroom. The landlord explained that, when its main contractor was not able to resolve a repair, it had an ‘alternative platform’ where the jobs were logged for other contractors to bid on. The landlord said it had done this to ensure that her property was attended as quickly as possible.
2. Noted that the resident had advised that she did not want the latest contractor to proceed with his inspection. The landlord asked that the resident re–consider and allow the contractor to attend. The landlord explained that this was because it wanted ‘to get this resolved as quickly as possible’ and that if it did not proceed with that particular contractor, it would have to re submit a request for a new contractor which would delay the repair even further.]
The resident escalated her complaint on 27 February 2023. The resident said that, as she ‘had stated previously,’ the back and forth, chasing up appointments and time-consuming correspondence via email was not good for her mental wellbeing. The resident said:
1. That she was not prepared to reschedule any appointments with the contractors, to investigate the source of the smell in her bathroom, at that time and wanted her complaint to be investigated further as the contractors failed to attend on 3 separate occasions.
2. No suitable properties had been available for her to bid on, which had not helped, and the current living situation for her family remained the same.
3. In regard to the surveyor attending with the floor specialist, she would appreciate it if the landlord could give her a timeframe, noting that he had attended the previous year and it was now approaching March 2023.
On 6 March 2023, the resident’s housing officer emailed her to say that they had received notification that the surveyor had arranged a joint visit with the flooring specialist on 16 February 2023. The Housing officer asked if the resident would be available. The resident responded the same day to confirm that she would.
On 16 March 2023, the landlord received a quote for upgrading insulation between the floors in the upstairs property, including the bedroom, hallway, middle bedroom, and internal hallway.
The landlord issued its final response on 4 April 2023.
1. With regards to the complaint about the repair to her bathroom, including concerns about missed appointments and its communication with her, the landlord said:
  1. That it should have been able to give more information about the delay with her repair.
  2. Its contractors failed to give the Housing Officer the information requested, and this impacted its communication with her.
  3. It had discussed this with the contractor involved in her repair and it was hoped that this would not happen again.
  4. The landlord said that it upheld this part of the resident’s complaint, offered her £150 compensation, and apologised for any distress or inconvenience caused as a result.
2. With regards to the noise transference:
  1. It understood that the resident was disappointed with its asset teams decision not to complete a home inspection in Spring 2022, in response to her concerns about a structural defect.
  2. Its assets team’s decision was based on the history of her case, and it was felt that the best resolution would be to offer her a priority banding to enable her to move home. This decision was reviewed by its Regional Head of Housing and a surveyor was requested to attend, which they did in Autumn 2022.
  3. It agreed that the assets team should have arranged the inspection when her housing officer initially made the request in May 2022. As a result, the landlord upheld the complaint and offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay.
  4. The landlord apologised for the service failure the resident had experienced and that this had fallen short of the standards it hoped to deliver to its customers.
3. With regards to her internal transfer, the landlord said that:
  1. It accepted that there was a structural defect in the property and that she needed to move home.
  2. The resident was currently on the highest banding on its choice based letting system and was asked to continue to bid for properties.
  3. It was also ‘actively’ looking for a suitable property for her but had not as yet been successful. The landlord suggested that it may be able to find the resident a property sooner if she were to consider widening the areas she was willing to move to. The resident was asked to discuss this with her Housing Officer.
The landlord issued a follow up stage 2 response on 5 July 2023. This was issued in response to contact from this Service regarding the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of her ceiling not having been addressed in its previous response. In its follow up response, the landlord:
1. Apologised for not addressing the resident’s concerns in its previous stage 2 response and said that this would be addressed with all its managers to ensure that this did not happen again.
2. Said that it understood that this issue had ‘greatly affected’ the resident’s household’s wellbeing, and that it should have given it the attention it deserved. The landlord acknowledged the impact this had had on the resident’s daily life, and ‘sincerely apologised’ for not considering this when providing its previous response.
3. Said that in March 2023, its surveyor visited the resident’s property, and the flat above. Following this, a specialist floor inspection was conducted, and their recommendations were shared with the landlord. Based on the inspection, it was confirmed that the flooring in the flat above would require work. To facilitate these necessary repairs, the resident of the flat above was informed in advance and arrangements were made for them to temporarily move out of their flat.
4. Said it obtained a quote for the required work and took steps to finalise the commencement date. On 3 July 2023, the resident of the flat above was relocated, and the work on the flooring commenced. The landlord said that it anticipated that the work would be completed by the week commencing 10 July 2023.
5. Acknowledged the resident’s concerns about whether these works would completely resolve the noise issues she had been experiencing. However, at that time, it could not provide a definitive assurance that the work would entirely eliminate the ‘noise nuisance’. The landlord said that once the work was finished, its surveyor would visit to inspect and assess the completed repairs.
6. Said that it intended to ‘facilitate direct communication’ between its surveyor and the resident to arrange a follow up discussion. The landlord said that this discussion would provide an opportunity for the resident to provide feedback on the work that had been completed.
7. Offered the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the ‘extended duration’ it had taken to resolve the situation and the impact it had had on the resident’s household. The landlord said that this compensation was ‘intended to acknowledge the stress and inconvenience that ‘the resident and her family’ have experienced throughout this process.’
8. Said that during its discussion with the resident, it also explained that there was a shortage of available properties for households. Nevertheless, it would closely monitor vacant properties and assess their suitability for the resident’s family. If a suitable property became available, the landlord said that it would ‘promptly’ inform her. The landlord also encouraged the resident to continue to log onto the choice based letting system on a weekly basis to bid for any properties which might be advertised and meet her needs.
On 28 July 2023, the resident emailed her housing operations manager to say that whilst the works to the flat above had been completed, the noise disturbance had not subsided in her bedroom and hallway. The resident also referred to the landlord’s follow up stage 2 response of 5 July 2023, in which it had said that the surveyor would contact her to discuss her concerns further and give her the opportunity to provide feedback on the works completed. The resident said that:
1. 2 weeks had passed and she had not had any contact from him.
2. She had made countless complaints and attempts to have the noise disturbance rectified over a decade and the landlord had ‘failed miserably’ to remedy the problem or take her complaints seriously. The resident said that ‘everyone’ was aware that this issue had impacted her ‘entire’ family’s health and wellbeing.
3. She had been informed that the surveyor who inspected the works had emailed the landlord with recommendations to carry out further works to her property to minimise the noise.
4. She would like an update on her management move to suitable alternative accommodation.
The housing options manager responded to the resident on 31 July 2023 to say that they had sent the surveyor a copy of her email of 28 July 2023 to read and provide his comments. The resident was advised that she would be provided with an update as soon as the surveyor had provided his response. With regards to her transfer, the housing options manager said that no suitable properties had become empty, which meant that there was still nothing to offer the resident.
The surveyor responded to the housing options manager on 2 August 2023 to say that the ‘extensive’ works inside the upstairs flat ‘significantly minimised’ the noise. However unfortunately the resident was still reporting noise affecting her bedroom and hallway. The surveyor said that the noise reported after the completion of the works was mainly a structure-related defect, that all the blocks in that area had. The surveyor also said that he had made it known at ‘the very beginning’ that the work was not guaranteed to eradicate the noise but minimise it. The surveyor said that as this was a structure-related defect, there was a limit as to how far they could go to rectify this.
The housing options manager forwarded the response from the surveyor to the resident on 3 August 2023, stating that they would continue to work with her towards a move to a suitable alternative property. However, they had no way of knowing how long this would take as this depended on when a property became available.
In a telephone conversation with this Service on 9 October 2024, the resident advised that she had moved to another property approximately 3 months previously.

Assessment and findings

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. The 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what, if anything, the landlord has done to put things right. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents.
The resident has explained the impact the noise transference had on her and her children’s health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding this; however, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim as courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Response to the resident’s report of repair to her bathroom, including concerns about missed appointments and its communication with her.

Having been advised on 10 August 2022 of a ‘terrible smell coming from the resident’s bath, sink and toilet it was appropriate for the landlord to raise a job for this to be investigated. In accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, it should have aimed to complete the repair within the 20 working days timescale for ‘standard’ repairs, and by 7 September 2022.
However, by the time of the landlord’s final response of 4 April 2023, over 7 months later, the repair had still not been completed. The landlord’s repair records state that the works to the resident’s bathroom were then not completed until 19 July 2023, almost 1 year after the resident had first reported this issue. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the repair to be completed.
In addition to this unreasonable delay, there had also been multiple missed appointments, and the landlord had failed to provide the resident with any meaningful updates outside of responding to concerns raised by her. The landlord also failed to follow through with the commitments it made in response to those concerns.
The resident’s initial report of a missed appointment was sometime in October 2022. This Service has not seen evidence of this report; however, evidence has been seen of the resident advising the landlord, on 18 October 2022, that her report of this had not been responded to by her housing officer.
The landlord apologised for this in an email of 31 October 2022 and said that it had re-raised the repair. The landlord said that it would ensure this was followed through to completion and that compensation would be offered for the missed appointment. The landlord also said that it would contact the resident after the appointment to check it had been carried out to her satisfaction.
However, despite these assurances, on 30 November 2022, almost 1 month later, the resident contacted her housing officer to say that the repair had not been completed and she had still not had any update. By this time over 3 months, some 60 working days, had passed since the resident first reported this issue in August 2022.
In response the housing officer said they had re-raised the disputed repair for the contractor to reattend and further investigate the source of the smell which, despite their attendance and work carried out, they acknowledged still persisted. It is noted that whilst the attendance of a contractor prior to this was not disputed by the resident, the landlord’s repair records provided to this Service make no reference to this.
On 30 December 2022, the resident emailed her housing officer to report that the appointment, arranged for the previous day, had been missed. The resident said that she had waited until 3pm for the contractor but they failed to attend.
The housing officer responded on 3 January 2023 to say that they had checked the system and could see that the appointment to investigate the source of the smell in the resident’s bathroom had been re-booked, by the contractors, for 26 January 2023. However, the contractor had managed to bring this forward to 6 January 2023 and had advised that this had been confirmed with the resident.
On 6 January 2023, the resident emailed her housing officer to say that the contractor ‘had failed to turn up again’. The resident said that she was ‘really exhausted with this nonsense now’ and that she had been ‘patient long enough.’
On 9 January 2023, the housing officer emailed the resident to say that they had been advised by the contractor that they had tried to call her on 6 January 2023, to let her know they were running late but received no reply, and so left a voicemail. The housing officer said that they had requested evidence of this from the contractor. The resident responded to say that there was no truth in what the contractor had said, saying that they did not call or leave a message.
On 12 January 2023, the housing officer advised the resident that they re-raised the job, which would be assigned to a different contractor as soon as a new quote had been accepted.
On 6 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that the contractor failed to turn up again and had wasted her time. The landlord responded on 8 February 2023 to apologise and to say that this had been raised with the manager responsible for that team who were investigating the missed appointment.
Given these failures it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise in its stage 1 response for the failed visits and to provide the resident with an explanation for this. However, it only identified 3 missed appointments, when the evidence suggests there were 4 (in October 2022, December 2022, January 2023, and February 2023). The landlord also failed to offer the resident any redress at that time, and, whilst it did explain its repairs process to her, it failed to evidence that it had taken any learning from the resident’s complaint in order to prevent similar failures occurring going forward.
Further, the landlord’s response appeared to suggest that if the resident did not agree to the latest contractor attending, that she would be to blame for any further delays. It has been noted that this was not the only example of this approach by the landlord seen by this Service. In the resident’s housing operations manager’s email to her of 1 March 2023 it was also implied that the resident’s concerns about having the same contractor attend would delay the repair.
Whilst it is recognised that having to source another contractor may have delayed the repairs further, the landlord’s approach to the resident saying she did not want the same contractor to attend was not appropriate. Rather, having acknowledged its failures with regards to these works, the landlord should have shown some understanding of why the resident might be reluctant to have that contractor complete them. It should also have sought to reassure her about what steps it had taken to ensure that similar failures would not happen again going forward. It did not do this and to imply that if she were not to agree to that contractor she would somehow be to blame for any further delays, was not appropriate.
Following this the resident agreed on 6 March 2023 to have the appointment rescheduled. However, by the time of the landlord’s final response on 4 April 2023 the works had still not been completed.
In its final response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that it should have given the resident more information about the delay in the repair and confirmed that its contractors had failed to provide the information requested regarding the missed appointments. The landlord apologised for these failures and offered the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. However, it failed to provide her with any confirmation as to when the repairs would be completed.
The landlord’s repair records note that the works to address the resident’s reports of a smell from her bath, sink and toilet were not completed until 19 July 2023. By this time over 3 months had passed since the landlord’s final response, and almost 1 year since the resident initially reported the repair.
Whilst the landlord’s acknowledgement and apology are welcome, having considered the extend of the failures in respect of this element of the complaint, it is the view of this Service that the £150 compensation offered was not sufficient to provide the resident with redress.
This has resulted in a finding of maladministration and an order for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £350 compensation, bringing the total payable to £500. This is made up of:
1. A total of £200 for the 4 missed appointments, this is inclusive of the £150 already offered, if this has not already been paid.
2. £200 for the delay in the landlord completing the repair.
3. An additional £100 for the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord.

Response to the resident’s reports of sound transference from the flat above and concerns about the safety of the property due to a related ceiling defect.

The landlord’s assets referral procedure states that in the event that a repair is identified that is complex or technical, and therefore requires project management, the repair should be referred to the assets team. Structural works are included in the definition of ‘complex or technical’ in that procedure.
It is not disputed that the resident has been experiencing noise transference since ‘soon after’ she moved into the property in 2012. The dispute is whether, having been advised in early 2022 that the issue had worsened, the landlord did enough to resolve the problem and support the resident.
The landlord is not normally obliged to place soundproofing or make additional upgrades to the property at the resident’s request to reduce the noise transference. This is because there is no statutory obligation for a landlord to retrospectively make improvements to properties which met regulation standards at the time they were built.
However, in this case, as the landlord had acknowledged that there was a link between the noise reported and a defect to the joists, this element of the complaint cannot be considered an improvement. The question then is whether it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to carry out works to rectify this and whether its handling of this matter was fair and reasonable given all the circumstances of the case.
Further, given the landlord had been aware of the resident’s concerns regarding the noise transference for many years, and having previously agreed to consider the resident for a priority move as a result of those concerns, it would have been expected to have investigated the resident’s new report with a matter of urgency.
Having been advised by the resident in early 2022 that the noise transference had worsened, the landlord initially told her on 12 August 2022 that, as it was not going to be able to resolve the issue, the best course of action was for her to bid for a suitable property. Given its position at that time, that it would not be able to rectify the issue, and given the impact the noise transference was having on the resident and her family, this was an appropriate step for the landlord to take.
However, approximately 2 weeks later the landlord changed its position and on 31 August 2022 wrote to the resident to advise that a referral had been sent to its assets team to arrange a joint visit, to both her’s and her upstairs neighbour’s property.
The resident queried the landlord’s change of position, saying that she found this ‘concerning’ and asked that the housing officer elaborate on the purpose of the visit, and confirm whether it was ‘merely to update records or to remedy the defect.’ There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s query at any point throughout the complaints process.
Having committed to carrying out a joint inspection, the landlord would have been expected to have completed this within a reasonable period of time and to have kept the resident updated as to what action it intended to take and when. However, there is no evidence of the landlord doing so nor of it providing the resident with any updates until 28 November 2022, some 3 months after it had committed to carrying out the joint inspection in August 2022. At this point the landlord advised that the appointment for the surveyors inspection would be 14 December 2022.
The landlord has provided this Service with no evidence as to whether the inspection of 14 December 2022 took place or what the outcome was. On 5 January 2023, some 15 working days after she had been told the inspection would take place, the resident had to chase the landlord for an update as to what the surveyor was intending to do.
The housing officer responded the same day to advise that they had been copied into emails from the surveyor requesting all the information and consultants details from previous investigations as he was working towards trying to get the issue resolved. The housing officer said that as soon as they had further information they would get back to the resident. However, this Service has seen no evidence that they did so.
Despite the resident emailing the landlord on 21 November 2022, to say that she had had no response to her complaint about the noise transference, the landlord’s stage 1 response of 16 February 2023 made no reference to this issue.
In her escalation request, the resident again raised concerns about the surveyor attending and about when this would happen. In response the housing operations manager said that they would need to check with the surveyor what date he was aiming to attend with the floor specialist and would let the resident know. They also said that the delay was ‘more than likely with the availability of the floor specialist’ rather than the landlord’s surveyor. Given the vague nature of this response this had clearly not been investigated in any detail. It is noted that a similarly vague response was also provided in the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
On 6 March 2023, the resident’s housing officer emailed her to say that they had been advised that the surveyor had arranged a joint visit with the flooring specialist on 16 March 2023. The resident confirmed that she would be available for the appointment. This was followed up by the resident’s housing options manager on 7 March 2023, who advised that an inspection of the neighbouring flat would also be required, which her housing officer was still arranging.
This Service has seen no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with any further updates between 6 March 2023 and its final response to her complaint approximately 1 month later.
In its final response of 4 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged that its assets team should have completed the home inspection when her housing officer initially made the request in May 2022. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for this delay. However, it failed to provide the resident with any meaningful reason for this delay, to acknowledge her concerns or to recognise the impact this issue had on her.
The landlord did say that a surveyor attended in Autumn 2022 but provided no information about what they found nor what action the landlord intended to take, if any, or when any agreed works would be carried out. This was despite it having received a quote for upgrading insulation between floors in the upstairs property, on 16 March 2023, almost 15 working days earlier.
Following contact from this Service, the landlord acknowledged that it had missed the point in the complaint regarding the resident’s concerns about the structural issues with the ceiling. The landlord said that it would provide a follow up response addressing this issue by 6 July 2023, which it did, providing this on 5 July 2023. However, its response failed to actually address the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of her ceiling and instead repeated what it had previously advised as to what actions it had taken to try and resolve the noise disturbance.
It is acknowledged that in this later response the landlord did address the impact this issue had had on the resident’s daily life, and ‘sincerely apologised’ for not considering this when providing its previous response. The landlord also offered the resident £250 compensation which it said was in recognition of the ‘extended duration’ it had taken to resolve the situation and the impact this had had on the resident’s household.
However, given that the landlord said that this compensation was ‘intended to acknowledge the stress and inconvenience that ‘the resident and her family’ have experienced throughout this process’, it is the view of this Service that the £250 offered was not sufficient to provide the resident with a reasonable level of redress given the level of failure in this case.
Further, whilst the landlord made reference to the impact the situation had on the resident, it failed to reflect on its engagement with her in terms of the visits by the surveyor or the outcome of those visits. It also failed to consider why the resident had to continuously chase it for updates about how it proposed to resolve the matter, which understandably caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Although there may have been legitimate reasons as to why the landlord would not be able to completely eliminate the noise disturbance it should have kept the resident informed throughout.
To compound this failure, and having taken no evident learning from the complaint, following its final response the resident had to continue to chase the landlord again for updates on the works to the flat above. When she asked about the surveyor inspecting her property to see whether the works carried out had resolved her concerns the landlord’s response was dismissive, focusing solely on the works carried out to the flat above and not the resident’s personal situation. This is evidenced by an email from the landlord to the resident of 4 July 2023 in which it said that the purpose of the surveyor’s next visit was to complete the post-inspection of work the contractors had completed inside the flat above and would not include the resident’s flat because there was no work to post-inspect inside her property.
Given that the reason the works were being carried out was to seek to resolve the concerns raised by the resident and that the landlord was aware of the impact the noise transference had been having on her and her family, it having awarded her a Band A priority for a move based on that impact, this response was both dismissive and inappropriate. This would have understandably caused significant, and unnecessary, upset and frustration to the resident and made her feel that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
Given the extent of these failures, a finding of maladministration has been made. This is because whilst the landlord sought to offer redress to resolve the complaint, it did not offer compensation that was proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
To put things right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £700 compensation, bringing the total payable for this element of her complaint to £1,000. This amount is in line with the amounts set out in this Service’s Remedies guidance in situations where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident and where the redress needed to put things right is substantial.
This amount is inclusive of the £300 previously offered by the landlord: £50 offered in its final response for the delay and the £250 offered in its follow up response for the ‘extended duration’ it had taken to resolve the situation and the impact this had had on the resident’s household.
It is acknowledged that the resident may be disappointed at the level of compensation ordered. However, it is important to note that the amount ordered relates solely to the period covered in this report. As explained previously, whilst this Service acknowledges that the resident has been reporting issues of sound transference, and the detrimental impact this has had on her and her family, for a decade, this investigation has not considered this earlier period of time.
In addition to making things right, the landlord is also expected by this Service to learn from the outcomes of complaints. In this case, this Service is not satisfied the landlord did so. As a result a further order has been made for the landlord to carry out a review of the failures identified in respect of this element of the resident’s. The landlord is then to provide this Service with the outcomes of its review and what steps it intends to put in place to ensure improvements going forward.

Handling of the resident’s transfer

The landlord’s Allocations and letting policy states that it awards priority banding based on how a resident’s housing affects their circumstances. The policy lists a number of examples of what circumstances might fall within Band A, these include but are not limited to: ‘faces imminent personal risk which is life-threatening by remaining in their home’ and ‘Is required to decant their property.’
The landlord’s transfer procedure states that if the resident has been awarded a Band A, the Housing Officer should inform them that they will have 6 months to bid for a property. In the meantime, the landlord will look for a suitable property and try to make a direct offer. Direct offers may be made in a limited number of circumstances, including where a resident has been approved for a Band A management transfer / Band A medical and there is an ‘emergency’ need to move them.
Having been advised by the resident that the noise transference from the flat above had worsened, and having taken the initial position that it would not be able to resolve the issue, it was appropriate for the landlord to revisit her transfer banding. This it did, approving a Band A, which the landlord’s ‘Guide to Moving Home’ describes as being ‘Emergency/top priority.’
On 31 August 2022, the resident’s Housing Officer emailed her with details of the landlord’s choice based letting scheme and the bidding process. They also confirmed that the landlord would consider a direct offer if a suitable 2 bedroom property was identified during the voids process.
It is acknowledged that the resident’s transfer request was supported by her children’s headteacher. However, given that she had already been approved for the highest banding, it is unlikely that this would have changed this.
In these circumstances the landlord would be expected to acknowledge and respond to the information provided, which it did on 1 March 2023. In its email to the resident on that day the landlord acknowledged that the concerns raised by her children’s headteacher had been raised in the resident’s email to her previous housing officer in October 2022. The landlord said that it sympathised with the resident’s situation, but it remained the case that there were currently no properties to offer her. It went on to say that it would continue to monitor for any suitable properties but that it had ‘no idea’ when one would become available’.
By the time of the landlord’s final response of 4 April 2023, the resident had still not been offered a property. However, having reviewed the available evidence, this Service is satisfied that the landlord appropriately followed its transfer procedure. It awarded the resident a Band A, provided the resident with details of its choice based letting scheme and encouraged her to bid on suitable properties. The landlord also confirmed that it would consider a direct offer if a suitable 2 bedroom property was identified during the voids process.
It is understandable that the resident would have wanted to move as quickly as possible. However, given the limited availability of suitable alternative social housing, it would not be appropriate for this Service to determine that the length of time the resident had to wait for a new property to be sourced and offered was a failure on the landlord’s part.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The resident emailed the landlord on 3 October 2022 raising concerns about a number of issues including, that a complaint she had made in April 2022 had not been responded to and that the timeframe for a surveyor to attend with regards to the noise transference was ‘unsatisfactory’. The resident said that she was concerned, having been previously advised that a visit to her property was not needed, that the asset team had now been asked to investigate the defect. The resident raised concerns that the defect could be a potential health and safety concern.
In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord should have logged the resident’s complaint within 1 working day and then contacted her within 2 working days of the complaint being made. The stage 1 response should then have been issued within 10 working days, in this case no later than 19 October 2022, which it did not do.
On 18 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to complain that it had failed to address her complaint. The resident also complained that the landlord had failed to respond to a job she had raised about a bad odour coming from her bath and toilet. The resident also said that the contractor failed to turn up to the appointment scheduled, she reported it and was told her housing officer would be in contact. The resident said that, to date, she had not had a response.
The resident’s email of 18 October 2022 was responded to by the landlord’s housing options manager on 31 October 2022. However, this was not a formal complaint response and focused solely on the resident’s reports of the bad odour and missed appointments in relation to this. It made no reference to the resident not having had a response to her previous complaint.
As a result, the resident had to chase the landlord for its complaint response, which she did on 21 November 2022. In her email to the landlord, the resident made it clear that her complaint included her concerns about the noise transference and her transfer. The resident said that she was left with no alternative but to ask that her complaint be escalated to the next stage.
Again, the housing options manager responded advising what actions they intended to take with regards to the sound transference and her transfer. However, whilst they acknowledged the resident had asked to escalate her complaint the housing options manager said that they would ‘put this on hold’ until the inspection had been carried out.
The actions of the landlord’s housing options manager to this point were not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. This is because this 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 also states that a resident does not have to use the word complaint in order for it to consider their contact to be a complaint.
Given that was the case, the housing options manager should have ensured that the resident’s concerns were raised as a formal complaint and a response provided within the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy. That they did not do so caused an unreasonable delay to the complaint being progressed and unnecessary distress, frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident again asked for her complaint to be progressed on 30 December 2022 and 5 January 2023, and on 10 January 2023 raised another complaint about the missed appointments for her bathroom. In response the landlord suggested that, as it was already investigating the issue of the missed appointments, that it close the new complaint and proceed with the original complaint. The landlord said that it could then respond once the work had been completed.’ The resident responded to agree to this, noting that when she logged the new complaint, she had requested that her original complaint be escalated.
The landlord did then not provide its stage 1 response until 16 February 2023, some 4 months after she had submitted her initial complaint. In its response the landlord apologised for missed appointments related to her report of the bad smell in her bathroom but failed to make any reference to the matters complained about on 3 October 2022. This was despite the resident having made it clear, when she agreed to close her new complaint, which she had raised on 10 January 2023, that the complaint had also included a request that her original complaint be escalated.
The resident sought to escalate her complaint again on 27 February 2023. In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord should have contacted the resident within 2 working days to discuss the complaint, and to get a better understanding of the issues raised and what outcome the resident was seeking. The stage 2 response should then have been issued within 20 working days of receipt of the review request. In this case that should have been by 27 March 2023.
The resident was contacted within the 2 working day timescale. However, the contact with her in response to her escalation request was not framed in a way that appeared to be seeking to get a better understanding of the issues raised and what she was seeking. Instead, it was very defensive and at times appeared to blame the resident for some of the issues raised. The content of the letter included:
1. Saying that it was ‘unfortunate’ that the resident was ‘not willing’ to reschedule any appointments with the contractor.
2. Saying that ‘at some point a contractor will need to attend and that delaying attendance may mean that when they approached the contractor again, they may not be available or the job may need to be assigned to another contractor, resulting in a ‘further delay’.
3. Noting that the resident wanted to proceed with a Stage 2, which it said it was ‘happy to arrange’, but that a Stage 2 review would acknowledge what it had previously explained about its process for contractors.
4. Saying that as it had ‘covered every aspect of (the resident’s) complaint’, it would be grateful if the resident could ‘bullet point the exact issues’ she would like to be reviewed and, in a separate section, bullet point the outcome she expected to receive.
Not only was the tone of this response not appropriate, but it was also not in accordance with this Service’s complaint handling code which states that whilst landlords are expected to make reasonable efforts to understand why a resident remains unhappy as part of its stage 2 response, residents must not be required to explain their reasons for requesting a stage 2 consideration.
Following further communication between the resident and the landlord, where the resident clearly set out her concerns, the complaint was escalated on 7 March 2023. However, again the tone of the correspondence confirming this was not appropriate, making negative reference to the resident having said that she was not going to ‘bullet point’ all her issues, which as noted above is not required under this Service’s complaint handling code.
The landlord issued its final response on 4 April 2023, which was within 20 working days of the landlord agreeing to escalate the complaint. However, this was some 26 working days after the resident had initially sought to escalate her complaint on 27 February 2023. The final response also failed to address the resident’s concerns about the safety of her property given the acknowledged defect to the ceiling.
This was not in accordance with this Service’s complaint handling code which states that 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.
This resulted in the landlord being contacted by this Service and agreeing to issue a follow up response to address this specific issue. However, despite apologising for not addressing the safety of her property, given the acknowledged defect to the ceiling in its previous response, the landlord then again failed to make any reference to this.
Given the extent of these failures, a finding of maladministration has been made in respect of the landlord handling of the associated complaint. To put things right the landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay the resident £300 compensation. The landlord has also been ordered to review its handling of this complaint and to provide this Service with an report confirming the outcome and what actions it intends to take as a result.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of repair to her bathroom, including concerns about missed appointments and its communication with her.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of sound transference from the flat above and concerns about the safety of the property due to a related ceiling defect.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,800, made up of:
  1. £500 in respect of its response to her report of disrepair to her bathroom, including concerns about missed appointments and its communication with her. This being made up of:

(1) £200 for the 4 missed appointments, this is inclusive of the £150 already offered, if this has not already been paid.

(2) £200 for the delay in the landlord completing the repair.

(3) An additional £100 for the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord.

£1,000 in respect of its response to her reports of sound transference from the flat above and concerns about the safety of the property due to a related ceiling defect. This amount is inclusive of the £300 previously offered by the landlord: £50 offered in its final response for the delay and the £250 offered in its follow up response for the ‘extended duration’ it had taken to resolve the situation and the impact this had had on the resident’s household.
£300 in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

To carry out a review of the failures identified in this investigation in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of sound transference from the flat above and concerns about the safety of the property due to a related ceiling defect and its handling of the associated complaint. The landlord is then to provide this Service with the outcomes of its review and what steps it intends to put in place to ensure improvements going forward.
To confirm compliance with the above orders.