Southern Housing (202404604)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404604 and 202404578

Southern Housing

28 February 2025

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. Request for carpet in the communal area.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), specifically noise nuisance.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the ASB complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom first-floor flat of a converted house.
The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities concerning the resident, who has a disability, a functional neurological disorder, and noise hypersensitivity.
The resident submitted 2 distinct complaints to the landlord and subsequently to us; however, the issues overlap and have been addressed in a single report with the resident’s consent. The background section is divided into the 2 complaint categories for ease of reading.

Request for carpet in the communal area

In August 2023, the resident requested permission from the landlord to replace the existing vinyl flooring in the communal area and on the stairs with carpet, as she stated that the flooring was dirty and noisy.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 January 2024 and said soundproofing communal areas was not required, and the noise reported was everyday living noise. The same day, the resident complained and said that the cyclical maintenance team had told her carpets could be laid to replace the vinyl flooring.
The landlord replied on 29 February 2024 at stage 1 of its complaints process. It stated that:
1. Flooring replacement occurred only when required and was not included in cyclical decorations.
2. It apologised for any misleading information given to the resident.
3. It apologised for the frustration caused by the email confirming it would not replace the flooring.
4. It committed to providing training to establish clear expectations and standards.
5. It offered compensation totalling £45: £15 for the inconvenience, £15 for the misinformation, and £15 for not responding to the resident’s request.
On 11 March 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She expressed dissatisfaction with the conflicting information she had received regarding the carpet installation. The landlord increased its compensation offer at stage 2 to £95 to acknowledge the confusion and distress caused. On 24 April 2024, it replaced the flooring in the communal areas with new underlay and vinyl, which it hoped would resolve the noise the resident was experiencing.
The resident remained unhappy with the response and asked us to investigate her complaint, as she wanted carpet in the communal areas.

Reports of ASB, specifically noise nuisance

Between August 2023 and December 2023, the resident reported a noise nuisance to the landlord. The resident described creaking, stomping, and loud thudding on the ceiling from the neighbour in the flat above. The resident was requested to complete diary sheets and/or use the Noise App to log the reports. At that time, the resident informed the police about the noise nuisance, which she deemed harassment and said was affecting her health.
On 31 December 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said the issues were not resolved despite the landlord opening an ASB case in August 2023. She asked the landlord to complete repairs to the floorboards in her neighbour’s flat.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 12 February 2024 and said:
1. It had spoken to the neighbour, who denied making noise deliberately.
2. The neighbour said that the floorboards needed replacing as the property was converted.
3. It arranged to visit the resident and her neighbour on 14 February 2024 to conduct a noise test on the floorboards.
4. A mediation referral was completed.
5. The resident and her neighbour had signed a Good Neighbour Agreement (GNA)
6. It was sorry to hear about the impact of the noise. The flat above was family-sized, and some low-level noise transference was expected.
7. A risk assessment would be completed.
8. It offered compensation totalling £80: £50 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused, £15 for failing to follow the process, and £15 for the resident having to chase for updates.
On 13 February 2024, the resident escalated her complaint as the floorboards had not been repaired, and the noise had worsened.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 25 July 2024, stating that during its investigation, the police found no evidence that the neighbour deliberately made excessive noise. It could not take further action regarding the tenancy agreement or GNA without evidence. It offered £325 in compensation, comprising:
1. £125 as it could not be confirmed whether the neighbour had removed his laminate flooring.
2. £100 for the delay in sending a stage 2 response.
3. £100 for the overall impact caused.
4. It proposed a professional witness service, mediation, and a home visit.
A professional witness was present from 7 to 13 September 2024. No noise was observed. The neighbour vacated the property on 17 November 2024.
The resident has asked us to investigate her complaint as she said the landlord has not confirmed if repairs were completed to the floorboards in the flat above.

Assessment and findings

Request for carpet in the communal area

According to the information published on the landlord’s website regarding estate services, the landlord is responsible for maintaining shared spaces. This includes cleaning floors, staircases, and balconies, whether the surfaces are concrete, vinyl, or carpeted. The tenancy agreement further emphasises this responsibility.
In August 2023, the resident raised concerns regarding the vinyl flooring in the communal areas and the noise transference she was experiencing. She requested permission to lay carpet in the communal area and on the stairs at her own expense. There is no evidence that the landlord responded until February 2024, 5 months later, which is unreasonable.
The resident has said that a member of the cyclical maintenance team verbally told her team that it would lay carpets to help with the sound insulation in the building. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, we have not seen any evidence that this was agreed upon.
We recognise that the resident was hypersensitive to noise, making any sound particularly challenging for her. We understand that the resident was confused after receiving conflicting messages regarding the flooring; therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the confusion and apologise for it. Additionally, it offered £45 compensation for the distress caused, which was reasonable.
The landlord missed an opportunity during the complaints process to explain the position on the flooring, which was central to the resident’s complaint. While the landlord stated it was not responsible for soundproofing the communal area, it failed to elaborate on why it chose not to carpet the space. By providing a detailed explanation of the reasons, the resident may have been more likely to understand the decision.
The resident pointed out that the tenancy agreement specifies carpet as the appropriate flooring for hallways and stairs, suggesting that the landlord breached the agreement. The landlord should have clarified that the flooring section of the agreement is relevant only to properties located above others, like first or second-floor flats, and does not relate specifically to communal spaces. If this information had been conveyed to the resident, it could have assisted her in understanding the landlord’s position.
The resident reported that the noise was affecting her well-being, a concern acknowledged by the landlord in responding to the complaint. However, after replacing the vinyl flooring with what the resident considered a like-for-like option, her concerns were not alleviated. Furthermore, the landlord should have communicated these considerations to the resident to ensure her concerns were taken seriously. We understand that the resident would have been disappointed, as this outcome was not what she desired.
The landlord acknowledged that its communication regarding the matter had been poor. At stage 2 of its complaints process, it apologised and offered £95 compensation. This was a reasonable response and we have found that the landlord offered reasonable redress.

Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), specifically noise nuisance.

The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it does not consider “everyday living noise or children’s play” to be ASB. It confirms that it will follow its Good Neighbour Management (GNM) policy when it does not consider the reports ASB and will advise the resident when using the GNM.
If a report relates to noise and the landlord decides to deal with it through the GNM procedure, the landlord will suggest action(s) it will consider, which may improve the situation for the resident. This could include:
1. The resident and the neighbour signing a Good Neighbour Agreement (GNA).
2. The landlord undertaking a home visit to help determine acceptable levels of noise between the properties
3. Exploring simple practical measures to reduce the impact of noise.
In this case, the resident informed the landlord multiple times from August to December 2023 about her neighbour’s noise nuisance. The noises she described included thudding, stomping, and creaking from her ceiling.
In August 2023, the landlord developed an action plan with the resident to collect evidence regarding the noise problem and clarify the landlord’s actions. These proactive steps included reviewing the diary sheets submitted by the resident and inspecting the flooring in the upstairs flat. These proactive steps were designed to stop the situation from escalating.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will not typically conduct a risk assessment matrix for issues addressed through the GNM procedure. It confirms that it will notify the resident when it employs the GNM procedure and the reasons for its use.
The landlord failed to inform the resident that it managed the reports via its GNM procedure. Furthermore, it opened an ASB case in August 2023, and therefore, in accordance with its policy, it should have carried out a risk assessment. A risk assessment was not completed until February 2024, 6 months after the ASB case was opened. This represents a significant deviation from its policy and a failure to capture vulnerabilities and potential risks to the resident at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord took proactive steps by implementing early intervention and informal strategies to address the noise complaints made by the resident. This included:
1. Coordinating with the police in September 2023 after the resident classified the noise as harassment, demonstrating a partnership approach consistent with its ASB policy.
2. Discussing the complaints with the neighbour, who denied any intentional noise.
3. Referring both parties to mediation.
4. Both parties agreeing to sign a GNA.
While there are examples of good practice, evidence indicates that the landlord did not:
1. Verify the neighbour’s account that his property was carpeted.
2. Assess the neighbour’s property to determine whether the floorboards were causing or contributing to the noise.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for failing to inspect the floorboards between the flats. Although it committed to an inspection on 14 February 2024, there is no evidence that this took place.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident cancelled the inspection; however, we do not have evidence to confirm this. Nonetheless, the inspection could have occurred since it focused on the neighbour’s floorboards. It remains unclear why it did not happen, and it was unreasonable that the landlord did not schedule a further appointment.
By July 2024, there was still no evidence that the flooring had been inspected or any repairs had been made. Consequently, 11 months after agreeing to inspect the flooring in August 2023, the landlord had not established whether the flooring was contributing to the noise. This was an unreasonable and unexplained delay.
The landlord apologised for the delays in investigating the flooring in the neighbour’s flat and offered £125 as discretionary compensation. Additionally, the landlord arranged for a professional witness to record the noise independently. The independent witness attended between 7 and 13 September 2024. The records show that no noise was witnessed.
The evidence confirms that the neighbour moved out of the property on 17 November 2024. The landlord has confirmed that the property remains empty.
To summarise, the landlord took positive steps to resolve the problem, including engaging with the neighbour and the police, suggesting mediation, and preparing a GNA for both parties to sign.
However, the resident faced considerable delays in the landlord’s inspection of the neighbour’s property and remains unsure if any repairs to the floorboards have been made. Over the 13-month period we evaluated, the landlord has not provided any inspection reports for flooring, which was unreasonable and caused distress to the resident for a prolonged period.
Additionally, there was a 6-month delay in conducting a risk assessment to evaluate the resident’s vulnerabilities and the effect of the noise on her, which was particularly critical given her hypersensitivity to sound, which the landlord should have been more considerate of.
Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents’ ASB reports. Our remedies guidance for maladministration suggests compensation amounts ranging from £100 to £600 when a landlord acknowledges failings, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation. The landlord offered £125 for the failings identified, which does not adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident over the 13-month period, who was particularly sensitive to noise. Consequently, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £175 for the failings that have caused distress and inconvenience. This raises the total compensation to £300.

ASB Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy confirms that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged, and stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. It confirms that if it needs more time to respond, it will explain why and inform the resident of an expected timescale for response.
The resident complained on 31 December 2023, and the complaint was acknowledged on 8 January 2024. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 12 February 2023, 25 working days later, 15 days outside its response timeframe. This was an unreasonable delay.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 February 2024. On March 26, 2024, the landlord requested an extension to provide a stage 2 response, confirming that it would be provided by 12 April 2024. The landlord did not issue the stage 2 response by the promised date. It was unreasonable for the resident to need to contact our Service to get a response from the landlord.
The landlord failed to meet its commitment by sending a stage 2 response on 25 July 2024, 72 days later than promised. This occurred only after we requested that it send a final response. The delay was unacceptable and was a departure from the 20-working-day response time specified in its complaints policy and the 30-working-day response time if an extension has been requested.
The handling of the complaint extended the resident’s complaints process and impacted the landlord’s ability to address the substantive issue. This also led to a missed opportunity to resolve her complaint promptly, as stated in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Furthermore, the resident faced delays in escalating her complaint to us. The landlord’s inaction and delays caused the resident distress and inconvenience while seeking a resolution.
The landlord apologised for the delay, which it attributed to a high number of complaints impacting its response time. It offered £200 compensation for the delay and the impact on the resident. The offer of compensation was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance for instances of a service failure, for example a failure to meet service standards, but where the failure had no significant impact. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the ASB complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s request for carpet in the communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, specifically noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of the [ASB] complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay the resident £300, comprised of:
  1. £125 offered at stage 2 for the failings identified in its handling of the ASB. If this has already been paid, it should be deducted from the total amount.
  2. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the landlord’s handling of the ASB.
  3. The money should be paid directly to the resident.
3. Write to the resident and explain the reasons for not replacing the communal flooring with carpet.