Tower Hamlets Homes (202306957)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306957

Tower Hamlets Homes

6 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 handling of:
1. The resident reports of noise disturbances from a neighbour.
2. The resident’s reports of leaks in the property.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat. The tenancy started in October 2005.
The resident has reported to the landlord that she has a disability and is vulnerable due to her mental health.
The neighbour’s property who the resident complains about is not managed by the landlord in its capacity as a social landlord.

Summary of events

The resident initially made reports of noise transference from 18 October 2022 until she raised her complaint with the landlord. This included that the neighbours in the property above were banging on the floor, that she could hear the neighbours baby screaming a lot, and she could hear the neighbours showering and cooking at 2am.
The resident raised a complaint on 10 October 2023 regarding the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise transference. The resident said the landlord’s lack of action has had a detrimental effect on her mental health. Additionally, the resident complained that her neighbour kept flooding their kitchen surfaces causing a leak through her ceiling. Also, that her neighbour’s were putting food waste down their sink causing her kitchen to flood.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 8 December 2023 it apologised for the delays in fitting underlay and carpet in the neighbour’s property. It explained that it had liaised with the Housing Options Team and was waiting for it to schedule a date to carry out works.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response and she requested it escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 21 January 2024. She said she was unhappy that the landlord had not resolved the issues with her neighbours. The resident requested that the landlord arrange for the neighbour’s property to be fitted with better underlay and a thicker carpet.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 22 April 2024 the landlord apologised for the level of service it delivered. It said that staffing issues had caused a delay in providing its stage 2 response. The landlord said new underlay had been fitted on 18 April 2024. Regarding the leak it advised that its previous investigations found no leak in the properties. However, it had arranged a further visit on 24 April 2024 to establish if the leak was still occurring and if so, where it was coming from.

Post complaint process

The landlord completed a noise test on 15 October 2024, it confirmed that prior to the test it spoke with the neighbours who denied the allegations. The landlord found that the noise levels were reasonable. It said that the resident’s condition of ‘hyperacusis (a reduced tolerance to sound)’ may be a factor in the resident’s ongoing issues. Therefore, it confirmed it had advised the resident to contact her GP.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to relevant legislation, its policies and procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Scope of investigation

The landlord and resident identified that the issues with the noise had been ongoing for a substantial amount of time. However, the Ombudsman is only able to consider complaints which were brought to the landlord’s and the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months of them occurring. As such the Ombudsman’s investigation will focus on the issues which occurred from 2022 onwards.
As the neighbour was not a tenant of the landlord, there would be limitations in what actions it was able to take. However, this report will focus on what actions the landlord was reasonably able to take inline with its ASB policy and its response to the resident.
The resident informed the Ombudsman the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, we will consider any impact that resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The Ombudsman’s “Spotlight on: Noise Complaints” report, highlights that it is not always appropriate to investigate noise complaints through a landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy. Noise complaints often require a tailored approach that is appropriate to the circumstances of each complaint. While the landlord appears to have used the ASB policy to manage this case, it adopted a tailored approach to the issues. The landlord deals with ‘noise nuisance – excessive noise’ under its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy.
In cases of ASB or noise nuisance, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether or not ASB has occurred. The Ombudsman’s role in such cases is to consider whether a landlord’s responses to its resident’s reports were in line with the landlord’s legal obligations, policies, and good practice. This includes considering whether a landlord’s actions were appropriate and reasonable, as well as proportionate to the issues being reported, and that it took all the circumstances into account.
In this case, the resident reported long standing issues of noise transference since 2022. This included that her neighbours were banging on the floor causing her distress. It is notable that the property the resident complains about is managed by the local authority Housing Options department. Therefore, the landlord was limited on what actions it could take against the neighbours as it does not manage the neighbour’s tenancy.
The landlord conducted a joint visit with the Housing Options Team on 8 February 2023. At this time, it identified that the neighbour did not have any underlay which may have created noise transference. Therefore, it contacted the Housing Options Team on 27 February 2023 to request it puts down underlay in the neighbour’s property.
The records show that the landlord had attempted to contact a Housing Officer at the Housing Options Team regarding fitting underlay in March 2023 but had no response. Despite this it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the Housing Options Team at its earliest opportunity. The landlord was aware of the noise reports in October 2022. However, the records show that the landlord first contacted the Housing Options Team on 23 January 2023. This was not reasonable as the landlord should have been proactive to seek a resolution at its earliest opportunity.
The records show that the landlord contacted the Housing Options Team a number of times in 2023. This included contact in February, March, August, October and November. Additionally, in April 2024. The landlord updated the Housing Options Team in March 2023 on the impact the noise transference was having on the resident’s wellbeing. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take. Whilst there is some evidence that the landlord was proactive in its contact with the Housing Options Team, it should have ensured regular contact to obtain a solution. Particularly, as the resident was in regular contact with the landlord regarding noise transference. This was a failing on behalf of the landlord as it was poor case management.
Given the lack of responses from the Housing Options Team, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to escalate the lack of responses with a senior manager in the Housing Options Team. Had it have done so, it may have sought an earlier resolution to the matters raised by the resident. This was a failing on the landlord’s behalf.
In line with the landlord’s ASB policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to take steps to gain evidence of the alleged behaviour using diary sheets or noise monitoring equipment where possible to support it in taking action. Additionally, for the landlord to work in partnership with other agencies to ensure effective joint working. Also, that it takes a multi agency response to problem solving.
The evidence provided does not show that the landlord attempted to work in partnership with the Housing Options Team. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to ask the team what evidence it required to establish noise transference issues or ASB and its processes. This could have included whether the neighbour’s landlord required the landlord to provide the resident with diary sheets or access to a noise app (if available) which would record the noise the resident was hearing.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that once noise transference or ASB is reported it will ask resident’s to complete a diary of events. This includes details of time, dates and a description of events. Taking this into account, the landlord missed an opportunity to obtain evidence from the resident at its earliest opportunity. Also, the landlord failed to act in line with its own policy by not working in partnership with the Housing Options Team and failed to take into account the impact this was having on the resident. The landlord’s failure in its handling of the case meant that good practice and a customer focused approach was overlooked. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to reassure the resident it was taking the matters seriously.
Despite its ASB policy and procedure stating that it will do so, there is no evidence of the landlord agreeing an action plan with the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident that it was limited in its actions as the neighbour did not have a tenancy with it. Its failure to do so was unreasonable. This shows poor case management practice and failure to manage the resident’s expectations.
This Service would also expect the landlord to complete risk assessments in reported ASB cases to assess the resident’s vulnerability and risk of harm. Whilst the records imply a risk assessment had taken place, the landlord did not provide this Service with any record of a completed risk assessment at commencement of the case or at any further stage during its handling of the resident’s reports. This was not reasonable as the landlord lacked oversight of the impact the noise was having on the resident.
The evidence provided shows that the landlord took appropriate action in contacting the resident’s GP in January 2023 due to its concern with the resident’s wellbeing. However, the landlord did not take any further action to support the resident. This could have included the landlord signposting the resident to local support services. Additionally, the landlord should have ensured that it contacted the resident on a regular basis to establish the impact the matters were having on her. This was not in line with its own ASB policy to signpost and refer where appropriate to support services.
In summary, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise. The landlord failed to ensure timely contact with the Housing Options Team. Additionally, it did not follow its own ASB process of working in partnership with the neighbour’s landlord. Further to this, the landlord did not follow its on ASB process in completing an action plan or a risk assessment and ensuring the resident had access to support throughout the case.
The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings in either of its complaint responses. This is not in line with the Code which expects landlords to take appropriate steps to address its failings and put things right. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay compensation to reflect the distress caused by its failings. It is also required to take steps to seek to learn from the issues identified.
In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, this Service calculates compensation to address the resident’s distress and time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of ASB. The landlord’s compensation guidelines states it will award between £10 to £50 a week.
The period of calculation has been taken to begin 28 days after the resident’s first report in October 2022. This reflects a reasonable period of time within which the landlord would be reasonably be expected to progress the resident’s ASB case. This covers approximately 72 weeks from November 2022 to April 2024 when the landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response. Based on £10 a week this would be calculated as £720. The compensation falls in this Service’s guide for maladministration where there has been a significant impact.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the property

The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep and in proper working order any installation. This mirrored its repair obligations of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, that a repair must be completed within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out target times for repairs. This states it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 20 days.
The resident initially reported a leak into her property from her neighbour’s property on 17 February 2023. Whilst the landlord correctly raised this as an emergency repair the records do not state the outcome of the repair except that the landlord attended the same day. The landlord’s attended again on 12 April 2023 following the resident’s reports that pools of water had formed from a pipe. However, again the records did not state what action, if any was taken.
The records provided to this Service by the landlord point to failures in effective record keeping practices. As part of this investigation, the landlord was requested to provide relevant information that would reasonably be recorded and retained by the landlord. The documentation provided was limited and the repair logs provided did not track its actions or future plans.
The resident said to the landlord that some of the leaks had been caused by dirty water coming up her sink from the property above. She explained that at times the neighbour was putting food waste down their sink causing pools of water in her property. Additionally, the resident said the neighbour kept flooding their kitchen work surface which caused a leak through her ceiling. She explained that the leaks caused damage to her décor, food, and other goods. As such, the resident was seeking related compensation and remedial action.
As noted earlier in this report, the landlord is limited on what actions it could take due to the resident’s neighbour not having a tenancy with it. With this in mind, it does not have any repair obligations or routine access to the neighbour’s property.
In terms of the leaks into the resident’s property, the landlord advised in its stage 2 complaint response that it had investigated the matters but found no evidence of leaks. The records show the resident reported damages to the kitchen in 2023 on 11 May 2023 following a leak from the ceiling. Also, on 12 July, 2 August and 1 September 2023 due to food waste from the neighbour’s property causing a back surge in her kitchen. The resident raised further reports on 11 March 2024 regarding a leak from the neighbour’s property above.
Whilst the landlord assigned appropriate emergency priority to the resident’s report of food waste causing a back surge in August 2023, it failed to appropriately assign the resident’s other reports of leaks as emergency repairs. This included that it incorrectly assigned the repair in May 2023 as routine. This was not reasonable as effective containment and repair of water leaking into a property is a high priority and should have been allocated as an emergency repair.
The records show that the landlord only attended and completed repairs on 26 May 2023 which was 11 days after the resident raised the matter. Given that water was leaking into the resident’s ceiling it would have been appropriate for the landlord to attend and complete ‘make safe’ works. This could have included making sure that her electrics were not affected. This was not reasonable and demonstrates a failure by the landlord to comply with its repairing obligation and requirements as to the health and safety of the resident’s living standards.
With regards to the resident’s reports of the neighbour’s food waste causing a back surge in her kitchen causing pools of water to form on her floor, the landlord allocated the repairs as routine. Its repair obligations states that it classes minor leaks under its routine repair obligations. However, given the back surge in the plumbing system it should have been classified as an emergency repair. The landlord appropriately assigned the resident’s first report of a back surge as an emergency. However, the resident’s subsequent reports in September were incorrectly assigned as routine repairs. This was not reasonable as the landlord lacked oversight of the matters raised by the resident.
Whilst the landlord did not have repair obligations of the neighbour’s property, there is limited evidence that it contacted the Housing Options Team at its earliest opportunity. The records show its first contact with the team was in November 2023. This was 7 months after the resident raised that food waste from the neighbouring property was causing a back surge in her kitchen. This was not reasonable as the landlord should have been proactive in contacting the team to ensure it was aware of the resident’s reports. Had the landlord have contacted the team earlier, it may have led to an early resolution and lessened the impact it had on the resident’s living conditions. This amounts to a failing as the landlord should have had full oversight of the cause of the resident’s reports.
There is no evidence the landlord pro-actively sought to update the resident prior to its stage 2 about its plans for repair or the steps it was taking to try and identify the cause of the leaks. Its approach was not customer centred and left the resident unclear on what was happening, adding to her distress. There was no evidence the landlord took account of the household circumstances as required by its maintenance policy, for example under its ‘vulnerable’ category. This required the landlord to consider whether the circumstances required additional priority to be given to the remedial work. Despite the resident reporting concerns about the potential impact to her mental health, there is no record the landlord reviewed this as relevant to its investigation.
This left the resident in a place of uncertainty which may have impacted the landlord and tenant relationship. Additionally, the landlord could have taken steps to be proactive regarding the resident’s reports of food being poured down a sink. This was not reasonable as the landlord was aware this was a recurring issue the resident was raising. This was a missed opportunity on the landlord’s behalf to prevent future reports from the resident.
The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for its failings in its complaint responses. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to address its failings, remedy, and learn from these. The landlord’s poor handling of its communication with the resident added to the distress caused to her. It also failed to consider its handling of the resident’s reports of the leak within its stage 1 response, despite the resident specifically raising this in her complaint. In doing so, it missed another opportunity to reflect fully upon its handling, learn or offer an appropriate remedy. Overall, this amounts to maladministration.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests financial redress of between £100 to £600 where a maladministration finding is made and the landlord’s efforts to put matters right or address detriment caused were disproportionate. The failings in the landlord’s handling caused distress to the resident over a prolonged period of several months. Accordingly, compensation has been awarded to reflect this.

The associated complaint

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
In accordance with its complaint’s procedure, the landlord’s response to residents’ complaints at stage 1 is required within 10 working days of the complaint and the stage 2 response in 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, this will be communicated to the resident.
The resident initially complained to the landlord on 10 October 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint 6 weeks later on 23 November 2023. It provided its response a month later on 8 December 2023 which is in not in line with its own complaint procedure and the Code.
The resident requested that the landlord progress to stage 2 of its complaint process on 21 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 28 February 2024. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 22 April 2024 which was 3 months after she escalated the complaint. The landlord’s delay to the provision of its stage 2 response and acknowledgement was unreasonable and contrary to its own policy and the Code.
The landlord apologised for its delays in its stage 2 response and confirmed it was facing staffing issues which was an unavoidable circumstance. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its delay, it did not go far enough to put things right. This, contributed to the resident’s distress and further exacerbated the situation further. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify, address and learn from the failings identified above. This constitutes maladministration.
This Service orders that the landlord pay the resident compensation to adequately reflect the avoidable inconvenience arising from its complaints handling failings and apologise to the resident for those it previously did not acknowledge.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident reports of noise disturbances from a neighbour.
2. The resident’s reports of leaks in the property.
3. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior manager to apologise to the resident for its handling of noise disturbances and damage caused by a leak.
2. Pay the resident £1,420 compensation, this comprises of:
  1. £720 to reflects distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of noise disturbances from a neighbour.
  2. £600 to reflect the resident’s distress and time and trouble in its handling of leaks in the property.
  3. £100 to reflect its failings in the handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
3. Within 8 weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
  1. Contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the damage caused to the property by the leak. If repairs are identified, a schedule of works with timescales for completion should be agreed.
4. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
  1. Meet with the resident to discuss any ongoing issues with noise. Create a time bound action plan and a risk assessment with the resident, to include a frequency of communication, actions it will be responsible for and explain any limitations it may face in dealing with the issue. It must also explain any actions it will be unable to take in its management of the resident’s concerns. It must ensure that the case is regularly reviewed by a senior manager.
Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.