One Housing Group Limited (202227166)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227166

The Riverside Group Limited

17 April 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder at the property. The property is a one-bedroom flat situated on the second floor of a purpose-built block that also includes a convenience store. The resident has no vulnerabilities.
The resident previously reported noise disturbance from 2 condenser units which this Service investigated in case number 202106730. This report will only cover events that occurred after the determination of that case. This is because paragraph 42 (l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme 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. Therefore, this report covers the landlords handling of a whistling noise, which the resident first reported in December 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 December 2021. She said that condenser units, owned by the convenience store, had started to make “a horrendous piercing whistling noise in the last few days”. She explained that she worked from home and had had to mute her microphone when on calls because the noise was so “loud and sharp”.
The landlord responded on 7 December 2021. It said that it had spoken to a staff member at the convenience store the day before who had promised to inspect the units and resolve the issue urgently. The landlord said it would update the resident again the next day.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 December 2021 to advise it that the noise was still occurring. She said it was “extremely annoying and disruptive”. She asked the landlord to log the issue as a formal complaint.
The landlord responded on the same day. It apologised for not updating her as promised and said that a staff member at the convenience store had inspected the units that week but could not find a problem. It said that following her email it had contacted the store again and asked them to instruct an engineer to resolve the problem. It said that it would not log the issue as a formal complaint because it was still trying to resolve the problem.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 December 2021. She said that if the landlord did not find a solution to the problem by the end of the next day, she would like it to log the issue as a formal complaint. She reminded the landlord that she was not the only resident complaining about the noise and said that it had received “a host of information from various residents”.
On 14 December 2021 the resident sent the landlord a recording of the noise and said it “was happening now”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 January 2022. She gave the landlord permission to pass her contact details to the environmental protection team at the local council. She explained that the noise was intermittent and occurred at various times of the day and night and therefore any inspections that were carried out would need to be lengthy enough to capture the problem. She said that she would like to “take her complaint further” because the landlord had not investigated despite the noise issue occurring for nearly 2 months. She said that the noise was “totally abnormal and extremely disruptive” and it was the first time she had heard anything like this in the 15+ years she had lived in the property.
On 24 February 2022 the environmental protection team asked the resident to keep a diary log of when the noise occurred. The resident provided this to both the landlord and the environmental protection team after 3 weeks. The log reported that the “loud whistling noise” occurred between 3 and 7 times daily. It lasted between 2 and 5 minutes and occurred at various times throughout the day and night.
On 1 April 2022, in an internal email, the landlord said it had visited the site that day. It said that it had witnessed a noise, which sounded like the one on the recording sent by the resident, but it seemed to be coming from inside the plant room rather than the condenser units. It said that it would pass the recording to the contractor that maintained the equipment in the plant room.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 April 2022. It said that it had discovered that the convenience store had recently replaced the fans on the condenser units which meant they should now generally be quieter. It said that it now thought the noise was coming from the plant room and that it had raised an urgent order with its maintenance team to attend and inspect the equipment in the plant room.
On 8 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She said that the noise was still happening daily. She asked the landlord for an update.
The landlord replied on 14 April 2022. It said that it had been necessary to get a light fixed in the plant room before the contractors could attend but this was now complete and the contractors would attend on 19 April 2022. The landlord said it would visit the site after this to confirm that the whistling noise had stopped.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 21 April 2022. It said that it had not heard the noise when it attended the plant room and that the pumps were all working as they should.
The resident asked for an update on 25 April 2022, she said that the noise was still an issue. The landlord responded on 29 April 2022. It told her what the contractors had said and said that it would attend the site that afternoon to try to take recordings of the noise from within the plant room.
The resident provided another recording of the noise on 2 May 2022.
The landlord emailed the contractor on 9 May 2022. It told the contractor that the noise was very intermittent and lasted for a few minutes at a time and therefore the engineer that attended may have missed it. It sent the contractor a copy of the diary log that the resident had completed and a recording of the noise. It asked the engineers to listen to this and give advice about the possible causes of the issue.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 May 2022 to tell her what it had asked the contractor to do. It also asked for the outcome of the visit from the environmental protection team.
The resident responded on the same day. She said that she wanted to log the noise issue as a complaint to make sure that it “was tracked properly and in line with the landlord’s complaint procedure”. She said that it had been “5 long months” since the issue started and that it was very disruptive because it was “loud enough to wake someone when sleeping with closed windows and earplugs”. She said the environmental protection team had attended the site but she was not expecting a report from them because they had not carried out an investigation or used noise detection equipment.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 May 2022. It said that it would not be able to raise the issue as a formal complaint as it could not see any evidence of service failure.
On 24 May 2022 the resident asked the landlord to raise the issue as a complaint again. She said that she had not received an update about the contractor’s inspection and as she had first reported the issue in December there was evidence of a service failure. The landlord acknowledged this as a stage 1 complaint on 26 May 2022.
The contractors attended the plant room on 30 May 2022. They provided the landlord with a report which said that the “booster set was 14 years old” and the top bearing of 2 pumps were worn which might be causing the noise. It recommended that the bearings and a seal were replaced. It said it would also strongly advise complete replacement of the unit “sometime in the near future” due to its age and condition. It also mentioned that there were 2 noisy condenser units in the locality that might be the cause of the problem.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 9 June 2022. It told the resident the outcome of the contractor’s visit on 30 May 2022. It said that it was waiting for quotations for the remedial work that the contractor had recommended. It apologised for the inconvenience and said that the complaint was partially upheld due to the time taken to source the noise. It said that it would make sure that the repairs were completed.
The resident tried to call the landlord 3 times on the 17 June 2022 and then emailed it on 20 June 2022. She asked for an update on the noise issue. The landlord’s complaints team responded on 21 June 2022 to advise her that her request had been forwarded to the relevant team.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 27 June 2022. She asked for an update again and said that it was now summer and she could not open her windows at night due to the noise. She said this was stressful and inconvenient because it affected her sleep. The landlord’s complaints team responded on 29 June 2022 to say that her request had been escalated to the relevant team.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 6 July 2022. She asked for a report regarding the findings and a proposed solution. The landlord’s complaints team responded on 8 July 2022 to say that the relevant team had been notified and asked to respond urgently.
The contractors attended the site on 15 July 2022 to replace the seal and bearings to the pumps in the plant room.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 15 July 2022 asking for an official response to her queries about when the work would be carried out. The landlord’s complaint team responded on 19 July 2022 to say that the residents query had been “escalated to director level”.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on 1 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged this on 3 August 2022.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 24 August 2022. It said that a contractor had attended on 30 May 2022 and found 2 condenser units outside the plant room that might be the cause of the noise. It said that the engineer had recommended that the bearings on these units were replaced but this job had not been requested due to an administrative error. It said that it had now ordered this work and the contractor would be attending soon.
The landlord also said that the contractor had also recommended replacement of the bearings on the pumps in the plant room and it had ordered this work. However, the parts required had a delivery time of 12 weeks. The landlord said that it upheld the complaint because of the inconvenience caused to the resident and the delays in completing the work. The landlord said that it considered the complaint to be “high impact”. It offered £300 in compensation broken down as £50 under the right to repair scheme, £200 in recognition of the impact the noise would have while waiting for the repair work and £50 in recognition of the ongoing delay. The landlord said it would keep her updated and would contact her every 4 weeks until the work was complete.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 and 16 September 2022 asking for an update. The complaints team responded to both emails saying that the relevant team had been asked to contact her.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 September 2022 and apologised for not keeping the resident updated as promised. It said that it needed to find out who the owners of the 2 condenser units were before it could decide whether to relocate them to the basement.
The landlord attended the site on 14 October 2022 to take noise level measurements. The landlord used a sound level meter to “obtain sound pressure results” in various areas including from the resident’s balcony, and close to the pump room. It took readings between 9.39am and 11:15am.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord produced a report of its findings which concluded that the “sound pressure readings were considered to be safe”. The resident advised the landlord that the whistling noise she complained about did not occur during the time the test was carried out and suggested that monitoring equipment should have been left for long enough to record the noise.
The resident commissioned an expert witness to prepare a report, dated 4 April 2024. The report investigated the noise impact of the whistling sound. An unattended noise survey was undertaken to determine specific sound levels in accordance with British Standard 4142. Continuous automated monitoring was undertaken between 12:10pm on 7 March 2024 and 12:20pm on 14 March 2024.
This survey identified “a tonal noise that occurred sporadically throughout the time of the survey for periods of time that exceeded 15 minutes on certain occasions”. The tonal noise occurred at periods throughout the day and night and the unattended survey captured multiple periods where it occurred. It could occur approximately 3 times per night for durations ranging between 1 minute to 30 minutes.
The report concluded that this noise source presented a significant adverse impact according to BS 4142.
The resident advised this Service that at the date of this report the whistling noise issue had still not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.

The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the common parts of the scheme that the property is located in. The landlord’s repairs policy states “for all routine repairs a mutually convenient appointment time and date will be attended to within 28 days”.
It was evident that the noise which the resident had not heard before in 15 years of living at the property, was likely to be due to a malfunction of equipment. Therefore, the landlord should have arranged to inspect and investigate the situation within 28 days.
However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord attended the site to investigate and listen to the noise issue until 1 April 2022. This was nearly 4 months after the resident first reported the problem. This was a failing by the landlord and led to severe delays in finding out where the noise was coming from. This caused detriment to the resident because the length of time that she experienced the disruptive noise was increased.
When the landlord attended the site, it heard the noise and noticed that it was coming from the plant room. It then requested that a contractor attend to investigate but it did not tell the contractor that the noise was sporadic. This was a further failing because the contractors attended for a short period of time and determined that there were no abnormal noises coming from the plant room.
This delay meant that it was 2 months after the landlord identified that the noise was coming from the plant room when the engineers attended to investigate again. During this time the resident contacted the landlord a further 6 times, costing her further time and trouble.
The landlord failed to keep the resident updated about the proposed repair work following the stage 1 complaint. It was over a month before the contractor attended to carry out the work but the landlord did not let the resident know when the work might take place or when it had been completed. This meant that she kept emailing the landlord for further information costing her further time and trouble.
A service report showed that the contractor carried out the work promised in the stage 1 complaint response on 15 July 2022. However, the landlord did not monitor whether the repair had been effective in resolving the issue. In fact, the landlord told the resident, in its stage 2 complaint response of the 24 August 2022 that the repair had not yet been completed because parts had to be ordered which would take 12 weeks to be delivered. This error and lack of cohesion meant that there was a delay in carrying out further investigations into the source of the noise from the plant room.
On 22 September 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it needed to find out who the owners of the condenser units were. Previous correspondence clearly showed that the landlord knew the answer to this because it had been liaising with the convenience store about them. This error would have further undermined the landlord/tenant relationship.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord carried out a thorough investigation into, and monitoring of, the whistling noise from the plant room. The inspection and report it produced on 17 November 2022 focussed on noise monitoring for a short period of time and did not involve a thorough inspection of the plant room. The landlord knew that the noise was sporadic but did not allow enough time for noise monitoring. It therefore recorded noise levels when the whistling noise was not occurring. This was a further failing by the landlord and a missed opportunity to find the source of the noise.
Due to these failings, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of noise disturbance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says, “a complaint is defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of a service, actions or lack of actions by us, our staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
The resident asked the landlord to log the noise issue as a complaint 5 times over a period of over 5 months before it logged the stage 1 complaint. The resident showed clear dissatisfaction with the standard of service she was receiving but the landlord refused to log the complaint because it said that it “could not see any evidence of service failure”. This was a failure by the landlord to follow its own policy which caused detriment to the resident because the noise issue may have been resolved sooner had a proper investigation been carried out earlier.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time (the Code) said, “if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, a detailed explanation must be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman does not agree that the exclusion has been fairly applied, the Ombudsman may instruct the landlord to take on the complaint”. The landlord failed to provide a detailed explanation and did not signpost the resident to this Service which was a failing. The delay in accepting the complaint also ultimately delayed the residents access to an investigation by this Service.
The resident emailed the complaints team on 4 separate occasions after receiving the stage 1 response. She expressed dissatisfaction with the service she was receiving and on each occasion the complaints team promised to chase the relevant team. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the relevant team responded to the resident. This cost the resident time and trouble because she had to keep emailing the landlord. It also caused her distress and inconvenience because she was not receiving any feedback and the noise was still disrupting her during the day and night.
The Code also said, “effective complaint handling skills are one of the most important factors in ensuring that the complaints handling works well. Complaint handlers should:
1. have access to staff at all levels to facilitate quick resolution of complaints,
2. have the authority and autonomy to act to resolve disputes quickly and fairly”.
Therefore, the complaints team should have taken ownership of the resident’s enquiries and should have been able to access relevant officers at a senior level in order to provide answers to the resident. The resident’s enquiries should also have triggered an escalation to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. This did not happen which caused further delays.
The stage 2 complaint response contained errors that showed a lack of investigation and understanding. It said that the condenser units needed replacement bearings which was not correct. This error would have caused the resident more confusion and ultimately would have led to her losing further faith in the landlord’s commitment to resolving the noise issue.
The landlord told the resident that there were parts on order in the stage 2 complaint response which was the second error. This Service has seen a report that showed that the bearings were replaced to the pumps in the plant room before the date of the stage 2 complaint response. If this had been identified at the time the landlord could have asked for further investigation to be carried out on all equipment in the plant room. This was a missed opportunity to potentially resolve the issue. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience because the problem was still not resolved.
The complaints responses showed a lack of empathy to the resident’s situation. The resident had advised the landlord that the noise was affecting her work and home life and causing her to lose sleep. Even though it said that the issue was a “high impact” complaint in its stage 2 response it did not reflect on how this would be affecting the resident. This was a complaint handling failure on the landlord’s part which led to a further breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship.
Due to the multiple failings identified above there has been maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
Pay the resident directly a total of £900 in compensation. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount. Compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £300 for time and trouble.
2. £350 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £250 for poor complaint handling.
Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
Conduct a survey to identify the exact location and cause of the noise and deliver a prescribed remedy. The survey should be conducted with relevant expert contractors to assist with diagnosing any issues. It should be conducted for a suitable duration and with suitably effective methodology, so as to ensure the capture of the reported noise multiple times. The survey and any prescribed remedies to be completed within 2 months of the date of this report.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendation

The landlord should proactively engage with the resident once a fortnight regarding the survey, its outcome and the work required to rectify the noise until such time that the noise is eliminated.