One Vision Housing Limited (202301849)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301849

One Vision Housing Limited

17 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise nuisance.
2. Concerns about contaminated water supply.
3. Report of damage caused during installation of a fire door.
4. Dissatisfaction about the level of service charges.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 8 September 1986. The property is a 2 bedroom flat.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord replaced the resident’s fire door on 27 May 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on the day it was fitted to report that the contractor had knocked some of the plaster off the wall and ripped the wallpaper. On 14 April 2023 the landlord offered to carry out works to try to remedy the damage which was declined by the resident.
On 3 April 2023 the resident phoned the landlord to report that the water tank was contaminated and should be cleaned out. On 6 April the landlord’s contractor provided advice on whether it was possible to get the water mains fed to the block. The work was carried out on 26 April. The landlord confirmed to the resident that the tank did not supply her drinking water which was the responsibility of the water company.
The resident reported that she was being disturbed by sound transference from the property above. The landlord visited the property on 23 January 2023. It subsequently fitted sound proofing to the living room and hallway in the property above on 16 February. The resident contacted her MP around March 2023 to report that the sound proofing had made the noise worse.
On 7 March 2023 the resident’s MP emailed the landlord on her behalf to make a stage 1 complaint. The resident was concerned about the quality of the sound proofing works and said the noise was “still bad.” The MP asked the landlord to contact the resident to assess the effectiveness and location of the sound insulation used and to consider additional measures.
During a call to the resident on 14 March 2023 the landlord advised it would need evidence of noise nuisance before considering any further works. In its stage 1 complaint response emailed to the MP on 21 March it said the sound proofing it had fitted was “the best on the market.”
On 28 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate her complaint about sound proofing to stage 2.
On 14 April 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response as follows:
1. It installed sound proofing to the lounge and hallway of the property above as a “gesture of goodwill.” It would need evidence of ongoing noise to be able to carry out further works. It suggested the resident provide this using the ‘noise app.’
2. It had inspected the tank in the loft on 6 April 2023. Works were then scheduled to remove the tank feed and add it into mains on 26 April.
3. The tank did not supply drinking water. Any other taps were fed from the water mains which was the responsibility of the water company.
4. During its visit to the resident on 23 January it took pictures of the fire door and damaged wallpaper. It offered to try to peel back the wallpaper and reattach to minimise the damage. It advised that the resident may still see a slight tear and asked her to confirm if she would like to go ahead.
5. The complaint was not upheld.
On 12 May 2023 the resident contacted this Service to report her dissatisfaction that the landlord had declined to carry out further works. She asked that sound proofing be carried out from her property to cover the whole area adjoining the property above. She was also unhappy with the delay in the landlord’s response to issues with the water tank and damage caused to her wall. The complaint became one we could consider on 31 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident raised her dissatisfaction with the increase in service charges, considering them to be “overpriced.” In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) in relation to how to proceed with a case.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint about the level of her service charge sits outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Landlord’s responsibilities, policies and procedures

Water UK, the trade association for the water industry, confirms that it is responsible for the safety of drinking water.
The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour Policy (ASB) suggests that residents should download the ‘noise app’ if they are experiencing noise nuisance.
Its complaints, appeals and feedback policy (complaints policy) says it will:
1. Acknowledge complaints within 2 working days.
2. Issue its responses to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days.
3. Only escalate cases when the substance of the case remains the same as stage 1. If new elements are raised, which would result in a substantially different resolution than would have been offered at stage 1, a new case will be opened.
Its compensation policy says it will consider paying a gesture of goodwill where inconvenience has been caused by its actions or failure to act.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents reports of noise nuisance.

The evidence shows that the landlord visited the resident on 23 January 2023 to discuss a number of issues, including noise nuisance. It was agreed that it would install sound proofing. This investigation has not seen a ‘live’ file note of the visit setting out what was discussed which is a record keeping failure. The landlord’s evidence says that it decided to install sound proofing as a goodwill gesture. However, its grounds for doing so are unclear as is what was agreed in terms of proposed works. This has impacted on the extent to which this investigation can assess the landlord’s response.
The repair logs show that on 16 February 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the property above. It took up the carpet in the hallway and cushion flooring in the living room to lay sound proofing. The carpet was relayed and the cushion flooring replaced.
In an internal email dated 20 March 2023 the landlord confirmed it had asked the resident to provide evidence of ongoing noise nuisance using the noise app however, she had declined. This advice was in line with its ASB policy.
During a call with this Service on 10 October 2024 the resident said that the noise app only recorded short bursts of noise and therefore was not suitable for her situation. She said she had taken recordings on her mobile phone but the landlord had declined to consider them as evidence. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s account, there is no independent evidence to corroborate the assertion. Therefore, this investigation cannot make a determination on this point.
In an internal email dated 21 March 2023 the landlord confirmed the sound proofing materials used were the “best on the market” and concluded there was “not much more it could do.”
The landlord’s file note of 14 April 2023 set out the resident’s concerns that it had not sound proofed the whole of the property above and would not carry out further works without evidence of ongoing noise. Landlords are not obliged to carry out improvements such as sound insulation and it was therefore reasonable that it sought to justify any additional sound proofing works.
However, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints asks landlords to “adopt a broader, pragmatic and holistic approach.” In this case it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider visiting again to assess the current situation for itself. It should have also considered whether other factors were contributing to the sound transference problems.
Had it done so it may have decided it was reasonable to undertake more minor works to try to improve the issue. For example, it could have considered:
1. The lack of carpeting throughout the property above.
2. Providing an antivibration mat to sit underneath the washing machine.
3. The condition of the floorboards and whether any works were necessary.
The landlord failed to consider the distress caused to the resident by the ongoing noise issue. It did not adopt an open minded approach to the situation as set out in the spotlight report. This amounts to maladministration because the failures had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about contaminated water supply.

An internal email dated 3 April 2023 refers to a call from the resident in which she asked the landlord to clear out the water tank because she believed it was contaminated. In a call to this Service on 10 October 2024 she confirmed that there had been particles in the water supply to the property and that the water was discoloured.
The repair logs show that on 6 April 2023 the landlord raised an order to assess if the water tank could be removed and the bathing water supplied from the mains feed.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 14 April 2023 confirmed the work was scheduled for 26 April. It reassured the resident that the tank only supplied bathing water.
In an internal email dated 17 April 2023 the landlord reiterated that the tank only supplied bathing water, it was therefore unclear why the resident was buying bottled water. Any issues with the water supplied to the taps was the responsibility of the water company. Its position was consistent with the information provided by water UK.
In a call to this Service on 12 May 2023 the resident asserted that the problem with the tank was first reported in January. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s account there is no independent evidence to corroborate her position.
The landlord was not responsible for any reduction in the quality of the resident’s drinking water and it took swift action to resolve any issues with the supply of bathing water. On that basis this investigation considers that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding damage caused during installation of a fire door.

The resident called the landlord on 27 May 2022 to report damage to her wallpaper and plaster around the door frame. The landlord’s records show that on 10 June an internal email confirmed the resident had called to chase its response and it requested she be updated.
However, in an email to the landlord dated 18 December 2022 the resident said that it had offered to “fix the wall and then cover over the damaged paper with a wider trim.” The resident said she had declined this because it would be unsightly and not the same as its original condition. This investigation has not seen evidence of the landlord’s response which is a record keeping failure.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 18 December 2022 causing her inconvenience, time and trouble when she raised the issue again as part of her stage 2 complaint in March 2023.
The resident also declined the landlord’s offer made in its stage 2 complaint response of 14 April 2023 to try to repair the damage. This was because it could not guarantee that it would be a full repair.
The stage 2 complaint response noted that “minor damage can sometimes not be prevented.” While that may be the case, it does not absolve the landlord’s responsibility to put things right and restore the resident to the position they would have been in were it not for its failure. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord to offer a resolution that would reduce the damage but not fully put it right.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s response because the failures had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident made a stage 1 complaint about the noise issue via her MP on 7 March 2023. The landlord emailed its response to the MP on 21 March which was appropriately in time.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) requires stage 1 complaint responses to set out information including the complaint stage, complaint definition and decision on the complaint. It should also provide details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
The landlord’s response did not adhere to the Code. Given the nature of its email it was unclear whether the landlord deemed the MP’s email to be a formal complaint and whether it had responded accordingly.
On 28 March 2023 the resident requested to escalate her noise complaint to stage 2. In an internal email of 31 March the landlord said it had not addressed the complaint at stage 1. However, because it had provided a response it would be inappropriate to return her to the start of the process. It decided it would therefore respond at stage 2.
The landlord’s complaint handling was confusing. If it chose to respond to the MP’s enquiry outside the complaints process it should have provided a formal stage 1 complaint response with rights to escalate rather than respond at stage 2.
The Code says that where residents raise additional complaints, and the stage 1 complaint has been issued, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. During the landlord’s call to the resident on 14 April 2023 she raised her dissatisfaction about a number of additional issues, including the water tank and damage to her wall.
The landlord failed to raise these issues as a new complaint and instead incorporated them into its stage 2 complaint response of 14 April 2023. By not raising new complaints at stage 1 the landlord failed to comply with the Code and its complaints policy. It also meant that the resident did not benefit from a 2 stage complaints process before contacting this Service to seek a resolution.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to service failure. This is because the failure was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £75 compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, the resident’s dissatisfaction about the level of service charges is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about contaminated water supply.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the to the resident’s concerns regarding damage caused during installation of a fire door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failures identified in the case.
  2. Set out works it will undertake to fully put right the damage caused during the installation of the fire door, including timescales.
2. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
3. Pay the resident £425 compensation comprised of:
  1. £250 for the distress caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
  2. £100 for the distress caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s concerns regarding damage caused during installation of a fire door.
  3. £75 for the adverse effect caused by its complaint handling failures.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review of its response to the resident’s noise complaints. The review should make reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints. It should use its learning to write a policy setting out its response to noise complaints.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with the order to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this report.