Camden Council (202001280)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001280

Camden Council

12 August 2021

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 and vibrations from the pipework in the property.
2. Concerns about the impact that the vibrations were having on his health.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, complaint b, as set out above, falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states – “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’’.
In correspondence to this Service, the resident has described the impact that the noise and vibrations have been having on his health. He has advised that he will be seeking compensation through the courts for neuralgia, tinnitus, and mental health issues including depression and anxiety. It is not clear if the resident has begun the process of pursuing this action. However, the process of determining whether an individual’s health has been affected by a particular event, or series of events, involves a review of medical records and knowledge of the aggravating factors affecting the relevant conditions. Such conclusions can only be reached by suitably qualified medical professionals. The Ombudsman cannot undertake such an assessment and for that reason, this part of the complaint falls outside of our remit.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident’s mother is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is occupied by the resident, along with his mother and siblings. The complaint to the landlord was initially raised by the resident’s mother. However, the resident has represented her in further communication with the landlord, and referred the complaint to this Service on her behalf.

Tenancy conditions

The ‘Your Tenancy Conditions’ handbook issued by the landlord confirms its obligations to its tenants. It states the landlord will keep in ‘repair and in good working’ order the services supplying water, gas and space and water heating.

The landlord’s housing repairs booklet.

The repairs booklet sets out the types of repairs that are the landlord’s responsibility and the service standards that should be adhered to. It states that routine repairs that the council is responsible for that are not considered an emergency or urgent should be completed within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 3 March 2020, the resident’s mother contacted her Housing Officer (HO) to express concerns she had about the condition of the heating system and associated pipework in the property. The resident’s mother provided a video of a vibrating radiator at the property, and explained that the matter had been discussed previously, and had been ongoing for several months but had recently become worse. She said that the vibrations under the floor could be felt across other rooms, and she therefore assumed the problem was with the pipes under the floor. The resident’s mother added that staff had been out to inspect the property previously, but had “said the same thing about their limitations as to what they can do”.
The HO asked for further details about the disturbance, and the resident replied to advise that it was constant throughout the day. The landlord arranged for an inspection to take place in response to the resident’s reports. However, it is not clear what was established during this visit.
The resident sent the landlord further correspondence over 5 and 8 March. In this, he expressed his concern that despite reporting the problem for four months, nothing had been done to fix the matter. The resident explained that the main issue was the noise vibration and that he was unable to sleep because of it. He added that he had been unable to work owing to the lack of sleep.
The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the landlord’s complaint form which was completed by the resident’s mother. It is not clear from the form what date it was submitted; however, the resident’s mother had advised that she wished to make a complaint about the repairs service – specifically that she had found them to be “unreliable and inadequate”. The resident’s mother said:
1. in addition to the property being cold, the radiators across the flat had started to vibrate and were getting worse – with the problem being particularly bad in her son’s room.
2. she believed the radiators were old and needed to be replaced.
3. she wished to be compensated for the inconvenience they had experienced.
On 12 March 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord again to advise that he had been left unable to sleep because of the vibrations. He expressed his frustration that although engineers had attended the property, nothing had been done to fix the problem. The resident added that he wanted an answer from a senior manager, or he would file a legal case with immediate notice.
On 24 March 2020, the resident emailed the complaints department to advise that he was continuing to be disturbed by the noise and vibration, and it was starting to seriously affect his health. He said that this was despite the radiator in his room being replaced the week before. The resident added that he had emailed the HO about the matter, but he had yet to receive a response.
The landlord responded to the resident the next day, and confirmed that it had arranged for a supervisor to attend the property later that week so that they could get to the bottom of the matter. Following the visit, the engineer advised that he considered the problem was owing to a faulty pump, and that a new one would have to be installed.
Meanwhile, the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s mother’s formal complaint. In a letter dated 31 March 2020, it said:
1. vibrations were first reported on 31 December 2019 and an engineer adjusted a valve which reduced the problem. The same problem was reported on 6 January 2020, but the engineer was unable to hear anything on that occasion.
2. the resident reported no heating again on 26 February 2020; the landlord bled the radiator and restored the heating the next day and agreed to install a new radiator which was completed on 19 March 2020.
3. the landlord contacted the resident on 24 March and was told the heating was working but the vibrations continued. A supervisor inspected the system on 27 March 2020. He believed the problem was a faulty pump and a replacement was ordered. It added that it would get in touch once this was received so that the installation could be arranged.
4. The request for compensation was declined as the landlord could not identify any service failure, although it acknowledged that the problem which they had been reporting had gone on for an extended period. The complaint was partially upheld as the landlord had not been able to resolve the issue, despite actively trying to.
Correspondence between the resident and the landlord’s Case Management Officer (CMO) continued. On 3 April 2020, the resident advised that the noise and vibrations continued to cause severe migraines, and he was getting to breaking point. He said that he needed a manager or director of repairs to investigate relocating him temporarily. In response, the CMO advised that the engineers were finalising the purchase of the pump and he would be able to provide an update shortly. The resident chased this again on 7 April 2020.
Internal emails show landlord staff had been in contact with the resident and explained the pump was ordered. However, it was awaiting confirmation on its delivery from Italy due to Covid-19 restrictions. The landlord confirmed that it would not provide temporary accommodation while the installation of the pump was outstanding.
The resident wrote further on 14 and 15 April 2020 to ask again if the landlord would consider offering temporary accommodation as he was unable to sleep – or spend any time in his room. The resident added that the situation was resulting in a deterioration in health.
On 20 April, the CMO advised that one pump would be delivered that day, but the remaining pump was not on the shipment from Italy due to a manufacturer error. He explained that the delivery was expected in 10 working days, and that the works would not be fully completed until the other pump had been received. The CMO added that they were chasing alternative pumps in the meantime.
The resident was dissatisfied with how the matter was progressing, and asked to escalate the formal complaint about how the landlord had dealt with the noise/vibration issue. The pumps were subsequently installed on 4 May, and the landlord issued its response to the complaint on 22 May. In its letter, it said:
1. Following the survey on 27 March, it was identified that two belt driven pumps to the communal boiler were to be replaced as they were old, were not working to fully capacity and were not energy efficient. It was added that there were no anti-vibration measures in place, which resulted in noise reverberating through the building.
2. The pumps were ordered, but due to the pandemic took longer than usual to arrive. There was also an error with the order, which resulted in the second pump arriving two weeks later. The works were completed on 4 May 2020.
3. The replacement pumps were end suction pumps with bellows to minimise vibration and noise transfer.
4. Following the works, on 9 May 2020, the resident said the vibrations had reduced and were not affecting the whole property but were isolated to his radiator.
5. The engineer attended the same day where they could hear the humming but not determine the source and on 15 May when it could not be heard. Contractors also inspected the ventilation system for the block but said that sound levels were normal and not causing a noise nuisance.
6. Having spoken to the landlord 19 May 2020, the resident believed the noise may have been from the leasehold flats directly above. An engineer attended the property, some other properties and the communal boiler room on 20 May 2020 and was able to hear the vibration in the resident’s bedroom.
7. An engineer would contact the resident shortly to remove the valve on the radiator in his bedroom and replace with a manual wheel head valve in case any vibrations were being caused by the moving parts in the thermostatic valves. The operative advised that after visiting other properties not affected by the noise, they had wheel head valves fitted. The engineer would also visit other properties within the immediate vicinity to investigate their valves and eliminate them as cause of the noise travelling along pipe work.
8. Given the lockdown this may take some time, the landlord understood this was a difficult situation and engineers would endeavour to do this as quickly as possible. If engineers needed to carry out any further tests, the landlord would keep the resident informed.
9. The complaint was partially upheld; it had been a challenging situation and difficult for the engineer to establish the source of the noise. Other residents had not complained about the noise, and the landlord sympathised with the effect this has had on his health. The error in the order from Italy meant the work was delayed by two weeks and a manager should have contacted the resident about the complaint sooner. The landlord was communicating with the repairs team to improve communication.
On 29 May 2020, the resident replied to advise that he had reached the conclusion that the landlord was unable to fix the issue. He explained that he was continuing to be affected by the problem, and the landlord’s engineers had failed to resolve the matter. As he was unhappy with what he considered to be a lack of action, he would be escalating the matter further and his solicitor would be in touch accordingly.
On 1 June 2020, the landlord’s complaints officer acknowledged that the problem was outstanding, and queried where the noise/vibration could be heard/felt. The resident replied that as the communal heating had been shut off, the vibrations and noise had temporarily ceased. However, the problem would resurface once the heating was turned on again.
The landlord issued a further response on 4 June and explained that the case had been discussed with a technical manager and one of the operatives. It said:
1. The issue required a more thorough inspection than could be done during Covid-19 restrictions and could require major works which would take time.
2. The pumps and valves were turned off to isolate the heating for the summer and were linked to the communal boiler in a nearby school. The heating would be off until October and the landlord would contact the resident nearer the time.
3. ‘Data loggers’ could be installed to monitor the noise, and it would get in touch with the resident to notify him when the heating would be switched on again.
4. It hoped that the lockdown restrictions would be lifted by September.
The resident was unhappy to wait until October for further action to take place. He advised that he was suffering with depression and that he was seeking compensation for the impact this had caused as he had also developed hearing loss and tinnitus.
On 16 June 2020, the landlord responded and said:
1. It could not carry out a more thorough inspection due to lockdown restrictions.
2. If replacement works were needed this would be referred to major works maintenance programme.
3. It may need to consult with leaseholders who would be charged for major works.
4. Due to the noise not being remedied by the engineer’s recent visit on 27 May 2020, the landlord decided to isolate the heating for the summer and turn off pumps and valves.
5. It did try to rectify noise prior to isolating the heating.
6. While the resident had reported noise, no other residents had. Operatives had completed work to the communal boiler and radiator on 4 and 27 May and could not justify extensive renewal or replacement pipe works during lockdown.
7. It was committed to resolving the complaint so would contact the resident in the first week of September when the heating was to be turned on to investigate further.
8. Should lockdown restrictions be lifted before then, it might be possible to complete a more intrusive investigation.
9. It strongly advised the resident not to arrange for private contractors as any damage caused by them would have to be met by the resident.

Events after the conclusion of the complaints process

In July 2020, the landlord informed the resident that it would like to install noise monitoring equipment. The resident expressed concern that the equipment would not detect the noise as it was of a low frequency; however, he agreed for it to be installed. The installation took place later in September 2020.
Following the installation of the noise recorder, the Gas Technical Officer declared that the evidence relating to noise readings between 25 September 2020 and 13 October 2020 showed “that there are no inconsistencies in levels recorded in different arears of the property. There are peaks on date of installation and date of removal but overall, the noise levels were in unison across the board”.
The resident said he felt the landlord was denying the sound despite engineers having heard it and he would take it further. The landlord has advised that on 12 December 2020, it spoke with the resident and his mother, and they said:
1. They did not want the noise recorder in property again as it ‘might infringe their privacy’ and believed the previous recordings should be enough.
2. They had advised operatives that the noise equipment may be faulty.
3. The resident was sleeping in his mother’s bedroom/sitting room while he sought help for not being able to sleep.
4. Other family members who swapped also complained of the noise.
5. The resident’s mother believed the noise was from heating as no noise was reported in summer when the heat was off.
6. The resident had consulted solicitors.
It is noted that correspondence between the resident and the landlord continued, and the noise recording equipment was installed on a second occasion.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that noise monitoring equipment could not record or find any unreasonable noise inside the property and attached a spreadsheet with data for three rooms, plotting one rating per hour per machine. It was explained that the result of this data was that – “the room in question (bedroom 1) is in line with other readings in the property. Nothing different in noise levels compared to other areas of the property. Noise levels in the property drop at night and rise and fluctuate between 50 – 60 decibels during the daytime, which is to be expected. The conclusion is there are no nuisance noise levels in this property that have been recorded.” The landlord added that independent advice should be sought if the resident remained unhappy.

Assessment and findings

Under the conditions of the tenancy, the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and in good working order the services supplying water, gas and space and water heating. In response to the resident’s initial report that there was noise/vibrations from the radiator or pipes in his room the landlord appropriately arranged for an engineer to attend the property. The engineer was unable to detect any noise or vibration, and therefore no further action was taken.
Following the resident’s further report of noise/vibration in March 2020, the landlord undertook further investigations into the cause of the problem. This was appropriate. It is noted that the radiator in the resident’s bedroom was replaced, but that the noise persisted despite this. It was subsequently confirmed at the end of March by an engineer that the source of the problem was likely to be a faulty pump.
The landlord appropriately arranged for the new parts to be ordered so that the repair could take place. As detailed above, there was an error with the order which delayed the repair by approximately two weeks.
The landlord’s Repairs Guide, as detailed above, says that routine repairs should be completed in 20 working days. The pumps were replaced on the 26th day after the issue was diagnosed. While this was outside of the landlord’s service standards, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the repair was not unduly delayed owing to issues presented by the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord also appropriately acknowledged this delay when it responded to the complaint. It is also acknowledged that the resident had been reporting the issue for several months by this time; however, the suspected issue with the valves was identified at the end of March 2020 and the evidence shows that the landlord took appropriate steps to try to arrange this specific repair.
Despite the repair, the resident reported that the situation persisted. In response, the landlord advised that further investigations may be necessary, but that these could not take place at the time of the complaint owing to Covid-19 restrictions.
From the evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman, it is not clear why the landlord did not agree to undertake further investigations in June 2020. Government guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities was updated on 1 June 2020. As part of the update, it was detailed that landlords could take steps to “address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections”, provided they were undertaken in line with public health advice. The restrictions were further relaxed on 1 August, and landlords were once again able to carry out routine repairs in households with clinically extremely vulnerable occupants, planned maintenance, exterior works and within communal areas.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence relating to the type of investigations that the landlord was hoping to undertake. For example, it is not clear if these were to take place within the resident’s property or communal areas. However, it is noted that its operatives and engineers had entered the resident’s property previously – following the outbreak of the pandemic; and that Government guidance from August 2020 did not prohibit works or planned maintenance within communal arears. In the circumstances, therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain the type of investigations it considered were appropriate, and why it was prevented from carrying them out. That the landlord did not provide such an explanation was a failing in the circumstances.
The landlord did try to obtain evidence of the noise after the formal complaints procedure was exhausted. As detailed above, it installed equipment to monitor the noise levels in the property from 25 September to 13 October 2020 and in February 2021. The landlord’s decision to try to capture the noise was appropriate in the circumstances – although, the resident’s comments in relation to the low frequency have been noted. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that the recordings did not detect any sounds that amounted to a statutory noise nuisance. Therefore, there was no obligation on the landlord to take action on the basis of the noise itself. As such, the landlord’s comments in relation to this were appropriate.
Nevertheless, as detailed above, during the course of the complaints procedure the landlord had advised that it would undertake “more thorough” inspections to try to determine the source of the noise/vibrations. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence which shows that the landlord was prevented – by Covid-19 restrictions – from undertaking such investigations in June 2020, and it should reasonably take steps to do so now.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and vibrations from the pipework in the property.

Reasons

The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports was appropriate. It arranged for an inspection and raised a repair based on the engineer’s conclusion that the pumps needed to be replaced. The repair was completed six days outside of the landlord’s service standards; however, there is no evidence to suggest that the repair was unduly delayed.
In response to the resident’s comments that the problem had persisted despite the repair, the landlord advised that more thorough investigations would be required – and that it could result in major works taking place. However, it said that these investigations could only take place once Covid-19 restrictions had been eased. Given Government guidance that was issued at the beginning of June 2020, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide further explanation about the intended investigations; and why it considered that it was prevented from undertaking these.
It was appropriate for the landlord to install noise monitoring equipment to establish whether the disturbance amounted to a statutory noise nuisance. The advice that it provided the resident, after reviewing the recordings, was appropriate.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident that a detailed explanation about further investigations, and why these could not take place, was not provided from June 2020 onwards.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its failure in communication.
3. Arrange for further investigations to take place. Once a date has been agreed:
  1. The landlord should write to the resident and this Service to confirm the date of the investigations.
  2. Following the investigations, the landlord should write to the resident and this Service with the details of its findings and any proposed works.
  3. If it is identified that works are required, the landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a schedule of works and the likely timescales for completion.