Settle Group (202203886)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203886

Settle Group

11 September 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise disturbance.
2. Request to move to an alternative property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the complaint handling in this case.

Background

The resident lives in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. He has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that began in 2002. The resident is autistic and he is sensitive to noise.
The landlord has informed this Service the resident’s reports of noise nuisance have been ongoing as early as 2006 and a previous complaint was brought to this Service. At the time of the initial complaint, the landlord offered to install sound insulation, however, this work was not completed as the tenant in the upper flat above the resident refused the work. The current resident in the upper flat occupies it on a leasehold agreement and therefore landlord obligations under the lease agreement are different to a tenancy agreement. The landlord also arranged mediation for the residents in 2008.
In January 2012, the flat above the resident’s property became empty and the landlord commissioned an independent company to conduct acoustic tests. The tests found the property met building regulations and it concluded acoustic performance to be satisfactory.
The resident’s complaint started in January 2022. He contacted the landlord as he wanted to move and he did not feel the landlord was doing enough to assist him. The resident implied the landlord was discriminating against him because of his disability as he could not make a bid for alternative properties via its online website due to his disability. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints procedure in January 2022. The landlord focussed its complaint response on the resident’s request for rehousing through the local authority’s lettings policy. It offered a resolution of an automatic bid to overcome the barrier of not being able to apply for properties through its website. It also contacted him to offer him support.
The resident contacted the landlord a number of times in February 2022. He described the noise disturbance he was suffering to be caused by everyday living noise. He told the landlord he was more sensitive to noise because of his autism. He felt the landlord was not doing enough to resolve the situation.
The resident continued to contact the landlord about his dissatisfaction that the noise disturbance was not resolved. The landlord did not register a stage 2 complaint until the end of May 2022. The landlord tried to arrange an inspection of the resident’s home, however, it was unsuccessful and the landlord closed the complaint because it said it could not investigate further without an inspection of the property.
The resident continued to contact the landlord in June 2022 and the landlord wrote to the resident to arrange an inspection. However, the resident was away from the property for a prolonged period and therefore it arranged to contact him when he returned at the beginning of August 2022.
The landlord reopened the stage 2 complaint at the end of September 2022. The landlord conducted the inspection of the property in mid-November 2022. During the interim period, the landlord inspected the upper flat and checked the floor coverings to ensure they met the requirements of the lease agreement.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident that same month. It acknowledged the delay to arrange a visit to the resident’s home. It stated it had surveyed the leasehold property above the resident’s property and it had arranged a follow on visit to the resident. It also said it would explore whether it could conduct an acoustic test at the property.
After the landlord’s complaints process ended, the landlord explored a range of options to improve matters for the resident that included sound proofing the property via an adaptation, visits, collaborative working with other agencies, installation of sound proof equipment, approval for a ‘management move’ and arrangements for a sound test to be conducted at the property.

Assessment and findings

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

The resident complained to the landlord in January 2022. However, the landlord’s records do not provide details of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s response did not refer to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance and instead it focussed on the resident’s rehousing request.
On 21 February 2022, the landlord’s records showed the resident had telephoned the landlord on a number of occasions to report noise disturbance from the flat above him. The resident described the noise to be everyday living noise of “chopping vegetables and people walking around”. The resident said he was autistic and he knew he was more sensitive to noise but he felt the landlord “did not care”.
The landlord’s records show it did not consider the case under its anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy. This was because it describes ASB as deliberate acts that cause fear, alarm or distress to another person. It says there is a difference between ASB and everyday “niggles” or everyday living noise. The decision not to classify the reports as ASB was reasonable given the resident’s reports were of being disturbed by what he described as everyday living noise and as such, did not fit the criteria which defined ASB.
The landlord did not have a noise management policy at the time of the resident’s complaint. The landlord did, however, have a neighbourhood management policy that aims to support tenants to remain in their home. For example, one of the objectives of the policy is “to provide extra help where an additional support need is identified – tailored to individual residents to help them live comfortably in their homes”.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s individual needs and offered him support through its ‘settle plus’ support service. The landlord’s vulnerable customer policy aims to support vulnerable residents through its ‘settle plus’ additional support offer. It says it will assess individual situations with “empathy and sensitivity” to understand their circumstances. The landlord aligned its actions to its neighbourhood management policy and vulnerable customers policy in referring the resident to its ‘settle plus’ support service in January 2022. It also offered the resident support over the forthcoming months in March 2022 and May 2022.
The resident was becoming increasingly frustrated that the landlord was not assisting him to resolve his reports of noise disturbance and on 8 March 2022, the landlord’s records show that he requested that the council stop his housing benefit payments to the landlord until the noise disturbance was resolved.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 16 March 2022. It agreed to inspect the property to determine the sound proof level, however, there is no evidence the inspection was conducted.
The landlord’s records of 13 May 2022 showed it had contacted the resident to discuss his support requirement. It noted he did not need additional support at that time. In another landlord record of 16 May 2022, it said there was not much it could do about noise from a repair perspective and it suggested an acoustic inspection by a specialist company that would outline any potential improvements that could be made to the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 May 2022 and 20 May 2022. He felt the landlord was ignoring him as he said it had not returned his calls. The landlord sent the resident a letter acknowledging his stage 2 complaint on 27 May 2022.
On 6 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. He said he “could not bear the noise due to his autism and wanted to move to another 2 bedroom property instead of using ear plugs that were causing him ear infections”. The landlord contacted the resident the same day, however, there is no record of its conversation.
On 24 June 2022, the landlord conducted a tenancy management case review. It has not provided its records to show the outcome of this review. In its management of the resident’s case, there have been a number of occasions where the landlord’s record keeping has been limited in relation to the support it provided to the resident, inspection of the property, conversations with the resident and a case review. The landlord cannot effectively manage and recall its actions without robust and transparent records and therefore the landlord’s limited record keeping was detrimental to the effective case management.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 27 June 2022 that explained it had not been able to contact him. It said it wanted to inspect the property, however, the resident was away for 4 weeks and therefore it closed the stage 2 complaint and it would contact him again the first week in August 2022.
The landlord could not provide a thorough stage 2 complaint response without an inspection of the property, therefore, its decision to delay the stage 2 complaint was fair in the circumstances. However, given the resident’s initial report of noise disturbance was in February 2022, it was unreasonable that it was unable to facilitate an inspection in the preceding 4 months.
On 11 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to find out what was happening with his reports of the ongoing noise disturbance. The landlord recorded it had spoken to the resident on 20 October 2022 and arranged to visit him. The landlord’s records of 25 October 2022 showed it would check what floor coverings were in place at the leaseholder property and ensure an appropriate underlay was fitted. The next day, the landlord confirmed that the leaseholder had agreed to ask her carpet fitter to check the floors.
The landlord extended the complaint response time to 27 October 2022 to enable an inspection of the property to be completed. It liaised with the council’s environmental health department for advice. The landlord also requested information about the floor coverings in the flat above the resident. The landlord checked the lease on the upper flat which stipulated “floors should be covered with carpets except kitchen and bathroom where a cork or rubber covering or other suitable material for avoiding the transmission of noise, may be used”.
The resident cancelled a planned inspection on 3 November 2022. The landlord re-visited on 7 November 2022. On this occasion, it did not arrange an appointment and the resident refused access. The inspection of the flat above the resident was completed and the floor coverings throughout were found to be in good order, with carpets in the lounge and bedrooms and new laminate floor with acoustic underlay in the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord did not find a breach of the terms of the lease.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 November 2022 as follows:
1. It acknowledged that despite its attempts to contact the resident, it took a significant amount of time to arrange a visit to the property which was not booked until 4 November 2022. However, the resident cancelled the appointment as he requested the landlord attend his home and the leaseholder property above him at the same time.
2. An appointment was arranged to visit the properties on 7 November 2022, however, it did not communicate the appointment prior to it arriving on that date and subsequently the resident refused access.
3. The leaseholder property was surveyed and it noted new floorcovering throughout the property had been fitted at the beginning of November 2022 and an insulated soundproof layer was fitted to the kitchen and bathroom floor.
4. There had been a history of reports of noise disturbance and in 2019, the landlord had spoken to the residents in the flat above. It told the resident to report his concerns to the council’s environmental health department. It confirmed environmental health had not requested the landlord to take any further action and had not taken action themselves.
5. It would arrange another visit to the resident’s home by the end of November 2022 and it would ask its neighbourhood officer to attend to ensure the resident had support in place.
6. It was exploring whether acoustic testing was an option and it would check its requirements in relation to retrospective sound proofing.
The resident contacted the landlord’s director on 11 November 2022 and the director remained in contact with the resident due to the complexities of the case. However, the resident was frustrated as he felt the landlord had not resolved his reports of the noise and he started to dismantle and remove fixtures from the property. The resident continued to refuse to pay his rent to the landlord.
Between December 2022 and April 2023, the landlord explored a range of options to resolve the resident’s reports of noise disturbance as follows:
1. Sound proofing through an adaptation on medical grounds. However, the landlord’s records do not show the outcome of the adaptation request.
2. It visited the resident’s home in January 2023, inspected the ceilings and structure of the property and found no disrepair.
3. On 26 February 2023, the landlord held a ‘professional meeting’ in partnership with other agencies. It noted the resident had accepted help and support and this continued. The resident’s support worker heard noise during a visit and described this as ‘everyday living noise’.
4. It offered to fit sound monitoring equipment.
5. The landlord and council continued to support the resident.
6. It considered an acoustic test on the property.
Communications continued between the resident and landlord in May 2023 to August 2023. The resident was concerned about creaking floorboards from the flat above him and noise in the kitchen area. He said noise monitoring equipment would not pick up that type of noise but was keen for the landlord to investigate the noise disturbance. He believed the joists may be rotten or the floor may be loose. The resident requested the landlord visit him to hear the noise and the landlord agreed to a visit.
Between August 2023 and February 2024, the landlord:
1. Visited the resident.
2. Installed sound monitoring equipment at his home.
3. Opened a case with the council’s environmental health department.
4. Sought advice from an independent acoustic specialist.
5. Held internal ‘complex case meetings’.
6. Checked floorboards and a stud wall. The landlord reported no repair or maintenance issues were identified.
The landlord recorded the following:
1. It had witnessed everyday living noise.
2. The resident had used the recording equipment on a few occasions.
3. It had held ‘complex case meetings’ and agreed actions to arrange repair inspections and liaise with environmental health.
4. It confirmed there were no repair issues at the property and on 4 December 2023 the landlord sent the resident a closure letter that offered the resident a meeting with the landlord.
The landlord met with the resident on 5 February 2024, and it sent a confirmation letter to the resident to arrange for a sound test to be conducted.
In conclusion, it was apparent from early in the resident’s contact with the landlord that he was distressed by what he recognised as his hypersensitivity to noise. While the landlord offered to support the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to agree a communication plan with the resident that included a timeframe of expected landlord actions to assist in managing the resident’s expectations and provide him with reassurance that it was exploring all reasonable resolutions to reach a satisfactory conclusion. This should have facilitated regular landlord updates to the resident to ensure he was kept informed throughout the investigation.
The landlord agreed to inspect the property in March 2022, however, there is no evidence the inspection was conducted until November 2022. The landlord did acknowledge the delay to conduct the inspection and it had failed to communicate an appointment date with the resident when it sent its stage 2 complaint response in November 2022. Despite recognising its delay was unreasonable, the landlord did not offer to put things right for the resident by way of compensation, which was inappropriate on the basis of its service failure.
The landlord suggested an independent acoustic inspection of the properties in May 2022, however, in November 2022, the landlord was still exploring this option and it did not agree to the acoustic test until February 2024. It is clear from the landlord evidence that such an inspection was a key activity for the landlord to understand the nature of any issue of sound transference and to inform its future course of action and case management. It was unreasonable that the timeframe to agree the test was nearly 2 years from first consideration.
The landlord’s limited record keeping and its reactive communication with the resident meant the case was not managed effectively. Poor case management and delay contributed to the delays and lack of action from the resident’s perspective to the point he chose to withdraw his rent payments and remove fixtures and fittings from within the property.
Following its stage 2 response, the landlord stepped up its actions and it put in place a number of proactive measures such as its contact with the resident in the flat above to inspect the property, checked the terms of the lease and floor coverings and it said it would arrange another inspection of the resident’s home and consider acoustic tests.
The landlord continued to explore a range of options to resolve the resident’s reports of noise disturbance after the complaints process had ended such as sound monitoring equipment, adaptation on medical grounds for sound insulation and liaison with departments such as environmental health. While these were all proactive measures, the landlord missed an opportunity to put these in place much earlier in the complaint timeline. It is reasonable to conclude there were no significant barriers to them being actioned following the resident’s initial reports of noise disturbance. As such, the landlord acted too late to effectively manage the resident’s noise complaint.
The landlord’s failure to be proactive caused an adverse impact on the resident’s ability to enjoy his home and considerable distress and frustration through his contacts with the landlord. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to provide timely actions and communication as part of its mis-management of his reports of noise disturbance. These failures were exacerbated by poor record keeping and cumulatively amount to maladministration for this complaint point.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move to an alternative property.

Scope of investigation

The resident requested a move through the housing waiting list managed under the local authority’s lettings policy and known as the ‘common housing scheme’.
Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 is the legislation that governs the assessment of housing allocations, including the assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference or eligibility for property types. The jurisdiction for disputes in these matters rests with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. As such, decisions in respect of housing allocations under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 are outside the scope of this investigation. The resident should therefore contact LGSCO directly if he wishes to pursue this part of the complaint.
This investigation will, however, assess the rehousing aspect of the complaint in relation to the landlord’s decision making under its ‘management move’ policy.
The resident wanted to move properties because he said noise from the upper flat was impacting his ability to live comfortably. He claimed the landlord was discriminating against him because he could not apply for properties online because of his disability and he said the landlord was not supporting him. The landlord registered a stage 1 complaint and responded to the resident on 21 January 2022. The landlord’s response included the following:
1. The resident was on the housing waiting list managed under the council’s lettings policy and known as the ‘common housing scheme’. The resident had been placed in the highest priority category (Band A). The resident had not expressed an interest in any recent properties. The landlord said the resident was eligible for a 1 bedroom property, however, that the resident wanted a 2 bedroom property. The local authority’s lettings policy sets out eligibility criteria of property types according to the number of persons who require rehousing. The resident is a single person and therefore only qualified for a 1 bedroom property under the lettings policy.
2. The landlord offered to set up an automatic bid for any suitable properties when they were available to overcome the resident’s difficulties of bidding for properties via the online system, due to his disability.
3. The landlord gave the resident information about its mutual exchange service to assist him to move properties.
4. It confirmed it had referred the resident to its ‘settle plus’ support service. This support service provided residents with additional support tailored to their individual needs, either provided directly by the landlord or by partner organisations.
5. The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ to how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so. Ultimately it is for the courts to determine whether any adjustments (requested or provided) are reasonable. However, we can investigate whether a landlord has properly considered whether the adjustments are practicable and if they would overcome the disadvantages experienced by disabled people. We may find service failure or maladministration if a landlord cannot demonstrate it properly considered whether adjustments were reasonable or should be made.
In response to the residents concerns that he could not access the online system due to his disability, the landlord made an adjustment to his account to set up an automatic bid for properties he was eligible for. In doing so, the landlord took measures which demonstrated due regard to its obligations under the Act. However, the landlord failed to directly address in its complaint response, the resident’s complaint that he was the subject of discrimination. This was inappropriate and will be analysed in the complaint handling section below.
On 21 February 2022, the landlord’s records showed the resident had telephoned the landlord and expressed his dissatisfaction because the landlord had told him he was eligible for a 1 bedroom property and he said he required a 2 bedroom property. The landlord identified that the resident no longer had a support worker and so arranged for its housing officer to support the resident with his application.
The resident requested the landlord escalate his complaint in mid-May 2022, and the landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. When the landlord responded to the resident, it explained the following:
1. The resident was in Band A with 207 points on the ‘common housing allocations scheme’, However, it noted he did not want to move through this scheme as he was only eligible for a 1 bedroom property and he said he required a 2 bedroom property on medical grounds.
2. It reiterated the steps it had put in place for the resident to overcome his difficulties with its online bidding system via the common housing allocation scheme.
3. It explained its mutual exchange process.
On 16 March 2023, the landlord agreed the resident was eligible for a ‘management move’ to another 2 bedroom property. The landlord’s ‘management move’ policy states “A management move is a request to move someone for reasons that are very urgent and are when someone is at serious risk of harm if they remain in the current property.”
The landlord’s timing and its decision to agree a management move factored on three key areas. These were the history of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance dating back to as early as 2006, the resident’s hypersensitivity to noise and whether the landlord would ever be in a position to acoustically insulate the property to a level that would meet the resident’s requirements. Given these key factors, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord should have considered a ‘management move’ much earlier in the case timeline.
The landlord offered a like for like sized property as the resident was occupying at the time of his application. A ‘management move’ decision of eligibility and property allocation is made solely by the landlord in accordance with its ‘management move’ policy and is distinct from the local authority allocations process. Based on the resident’s circumstances, the landlord’s decision was fair to the resident.
The landlord had offered the resident alternative accommodation through its ‘management move’ policy. However, the resident had refused 3 offers as he did not believe the properties were suitable. The landlord’s ‘management move’ policy states only 1 offer of alternative accommodation will be made. However, the policy also states the landlord should review this criteria if there are reasons that would mean the tenant would suffer detriment due to a disability, or if there is evidence they would still be exposed to ongoing risk. The landlord decided to keep its offer of a ‘management move’ open and offer further properties to the resident in accordance with this clause, and its actions were therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord sent the resident a letter dated 5 May 2023 that confirmed the resident said he did not want to move and therefore it had closed his ‘management move’ application. It confirmed he was still registered on the ‘common waiting list’ and he could bid for 1 bedroom properties.
During June 2023, the resident thought about ending his tenancy and the landlord discussed the implications of this with him. The resident then told the landlord on 19 June 2023, he was not ready to move because he had to ‘declutter’ his home, but he wanted to reconsider a move in the future. He told the landlord he had disengaged with partner agency support. In order to assist the resident, the landlord offered practical solutions to help him declutter his home.
In summary, the landlord demonstrated positive steps to address the resident’s rehousing through its advice and support. It assisted the resident to explore housing options through the local authority lettings scheme, and a mutual exchange.
However, it was clear from early on in the resident’s discussions with the landlord that he was distressed by his hypersensitivity to noise and did not feel he could stay at the property. Given the history of the resident’s reports and whether the property would ever be to a suitable acoustic standard to meet the resident’s individual needs, the landlord should have considered a ‘management move’ much earlier from February 2022. The landlord’s failure to act positively for 13 months caused an adverse impact on the resident and its failure amounts to maladministration. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience sustained through the landlord’s failures. This amount of compensation is aligned to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The resident complained to the landlord on 11 January 2022 about his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of support to him regarding a move due to his reports of noise disturbance. The landlord responded to the resident on 21 January 2022, 8 days later and in compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code that states a landlord should provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. The landlord therefore acted appropriately in responding within the required timeframe.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response concentrated on rehousing and support. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. While the landlord partly answered the resident’s complaint, it did not provide the resident with a response to the substantive issue of his reports of noise disturbance, nor did it directly address his complaint about being the subject of discrimination. In not doing so, the landlord missed an opportunity to review its actions and make an assessment of what it could do to put things right for the resident and demonstrate it was supporting the resident to provide resolution to his complaints. The failure to do so was a breach of the Code.
The resident made contact with the landlord on a number of occasions on 21 February 2022 to express his dissatisfaction with the way the landlord had handled his reports of noise disturbance and his rehousing request. Despite the resident’s contact, there is no evidence the landlord progressed his complaint until 27 May 2022. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (July 2020) states landlords should log and progress a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. It was therefore an inappropriate breach of the Code that the landlord delayed in registering the resident’s complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 27 May 2022 and sent him a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement letter. The landlord tried to contact the resident on 3 occasions without success. The landlord then sent the resident a letter to close the complaint as it said it could not progress a stage 2 complaint without an inspection of the property.
Communications continued between the resident and landlord. The resident notified the landlord he was away for 4 weeks in July 2022 and the landlord would contact him to progress the complaint at the beginning of August 2022. However, the landlord did not reopen the resident’s complaint until 29 September 2022 and the landlord extended the complaint response time to 27 October 2022 to allow time for an inspection of the property to be completed. The landlord subsequently sent a holding letter to the resident on 27 October 2022 as it could not inspect the property until the beginning of November 2022.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 10 November 2022. While some delays were attributed to the resident being away from his home, this appeared to be for a 4 week period and does not account for the full length of time it took to issue a response, which was nearly 4 months in total. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (April 2022) states landlords should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days and if this is not possible, an explanation and date when a stage 2 response should be provided. The landlord’s actions were therefore inappropriate.
In conclusion, the landlord did not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at both stages of its complaints process and the landlord’s delayed actions caused the resident considerable distress, inconvenience and delayed resolution of the complaint. Further, the landlord’s delayed resolution was a missed opportunity for the landlord to provide structure around the resident’s concerns, given the difficulties he was having with his support network. The landlord did not identify any of its failures or offer to put things right for the resident and the landlord’s inactions were unreasonable and amount to maladministration. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £200 to put things right, in recognition of the adverse impact the landlord’s delayed actions had on the resident. This amount of compensation aligns to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

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 request to move to an alternative property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should apologise in writing to the resident and provide this Service with a copy of the letter.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £800 to the resident in relation to its handling of the following failures:
1. £400 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of noise disturbance.
2. £200 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
3. £200 the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 10 weeks, it should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman with a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include, but may not be limited to:
1. How the landlord will improve its service to vulnerable residents where there is an identified hypersensitivity to noise and/or similar vulnerability.
2. How it manages noise complaints generally where an issue is present but ASB is not a factor. The landlord should utilise the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Knowledge and Information Report (May 2023) and the Spotlight on Noise (September 2022) complaint as a reference to assess and guide its review.
3. The landlord is free to include other issues. Identified improvements should be cascaded to its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.