Stonewater Limited (202200334)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200334

Stonewater Limited

29 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and her request to be reimbursed for a fridge-freezer.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a flat.
3. On 3 January 2023 the resident reported that a faulty alarm was keeping her awake at night and impacting her sleep. She reported a recurrence of the noise on 9 January 2023 and said she thought it was coming from a neighbouring property.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 16 January 2023. She had reported a high pitch noise and the landlord had refused to attend her property to locate the noise. She was unable to afford a new fridge-freezer, the suspected cause of the noise. She suffered with anxiety and depression, which was impacted by the noise.
5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 24 February 2023, it said:
   1. The resident initially reported a noise on 3 January 2023. The landlord contacted the resident the following day and she confirmed it was resolved. It spoke to residents in neighbouring properties and listened in various areas but found no noise was present.
   2. The resident reported on 17 January 2023 that the noise originated from her fridge. The landlord was unable to resolve the issue, as it had not provided the fridge. The resident replaced the fridge and advised the noise had stopped.
   3. On 23 January 2023 the resident reported the noise had recurred. The landlord identified the noise was from the wash hand basin in the property below and a contractor attended within 2 hours and resolved the issue.
   4. It had made safeguarding referrals due to concerns for the resident’s wellbeing.
6. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 24 February 2023 as she was disappointed the landlord would not reimburse her for the fridge-freezer. She had assumed the noise was coming from the fridge-freezer, despite reporting several times she thought it originated from a neighbouring flat.
7. In its stage 2 response on 10 March 2023, the landlord said the resident identified the noise as the fridge-freezer and its investigations did not indicate any other cause at the time. It offered to assist with funding for a new fridge-freezer through a charity, but she refused assistance. It was unable to reimburse the cost as the resident was responsible for the fridge-freezer.
8. In her complaint to the Service, the resident said she remained dissatisfied as the landlord did not promptly identify the cause of the noise and refused to visit her flat to assess the cause. She incorrectly replaced her fridge-freezer believing it was the source and the landlord had refused to reimburse her £394 for the costs incurred.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her mental health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health.
10. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and her request to be reimbursed for a fridge-freezer

11. The resident initially reported a noise on 3 January 2023. It was appropriate that the landlord contacted her the next day to discuss the issue, as the noise may have been caused by a repair issue it was responsible for. The resident said she had not heard the noise since 2 January 2023, so she thought it had stopped. The landlord would therefore not necessarily have to investigate the issue further. Nonetheless, it was reasonable that it discussed the resident’s reports with her neighbours and listened outside flat doors to satisfy for itself that there was not an ongoing noise. As it did not find any issues, no further actions were necessary at that time.
12. The resident reported a recurrence of the issue on 9 January 2023. She thought it was an alarm from a neighbouring flat. The landlord called the resident’s neighbours, and no-one reported any issues. Again, it noted that the resident said the noise had stopped so no further action would be taken, which was reasonable in view of the evidence.
13. On 18 January 2023 the resident reported the noise was from an alarm in her fridge-freezer. The landlord advised it was not responsible for any repairs as it had not provided it. The landlord’s website states residents are responsible for repairs to “anything which you have installed”. As such, its decision to not take further action to resolve the noise was in line with its guidance. The resident wanted the landlord to visit her property to further assess the noise but given the available evidence and her conclusion that it was caused by the fridge-freezer it would not be obliged to.
14. It is positive to note that the landlord sought to provide additional support to the resident. It looked at providing her with a spare fridge–freezer which had been on site previously, but it had already been taken elsewhere so was not a viable solution. It also said it could support her to gain funding through a charity, which the resident declined. It is understood that she did not accept the offer due to the length of time it would have taken. The resident subsequently replaced the fridge.
15. The resident reported on 22 January 2023 that the noise was ongoing, despite replacing the fridge-freezer. The landlord subsequently identified during a property visit that the noise was from her neighbour’s tap. The resident told the Service that the landlord had spoken to the neighbour several times prior to identifying the noise and they had not reported the issue as they did not think it was a disturbance. It is understandable that this would be frustrating to the resident as it may have prevented an earlier resolution. However, the landlord had made reasonable attempts to establish whether there were any noise issues in neighbouring properties and found no evidence to suggest there was.
16. The tap repair fell within the landlord’s remit of repair responsibility, in line with guidance on its website. A work order was raised on 23 January 2023 and the noise was resolved within 4 hours. The landlord’s website states it aims to complete repairs that do not pose an immediate health and safety risk within 28 days. Given the significant distress caused to the resident, it was reasonable that it prioritised the repair to provide a quick resolution. The resident confirmed this provided a full resolution at the time. The resident advised the Service that she has recently reported a recurrence of the issue to the landlord, which it should respond to in line with its repair timeframes.
17. The resident wanted compensation for the fridge-freezer as she thought if the landlord had inspected her flat, it would have identified the cause of the noise, and prevented her from unnecessarily replacing it. As the resident reported the noise was caused by the fridge-freezer and the landlord’s findings did not indicate an alternative cause, it was reasonable for it to accept the resident’s conclusion and not undertake further investigations. There is also insufficient evidence to confirm whether the noises were a continuation of the same issue or separate issues. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the resident discussed the purchase with the landlord or that it advised her to do so. As there was no failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise reports and it correctly advised the resident it was not responsible for the fridge-freezer, it was not responsible for reimbursing the costs.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and her request to be reimbursed for a fridge-freezer.