The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

City of Doncaster Council (202302011)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302011

City of Doncaster Council

2 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to reports of noise caused by building works.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
    3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the second floor. The landlord has noted that the resident experiences mental health concerns but it has said that it is not aware of a formal diagnosis.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 18 October 2022. He said that he was struggling to work from home because of noise from works to the building. He said that the noise from the works and the builders completing the works were unbearable, and described the noises as banging, shouting and beeping from vehicles. He said that he was on the housing register to move to another property and asked for his banding to be changed because of the noise concerns, so that he could move to a more suitable property.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 October 2022. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2022. It said that it had spoken to the head of building safety and confirmed that a large amount of works were being completed on its high-rise buildings. It said it had installed fencing and scaffolding to the property, but it had not yet commenced any works. It said it could not award additional priority to his housing register application based on the works to the property. It said that all residents would be supplied with a timetable of works once this was finalised, and that a resident liaison officer would be available to answer any questions before the works began. It apologised for any inconvenience this may have caused to the resident or his employer.
  4. On 14 November 2022, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said that he remained unhappy because he felt that a solution had not been offered. He said that the installation of fencing and scaffolding should be classed as building works. He also said that a timetable of works would not resolve the issue of being unable to work from home. He agreed that the works to the building were necessary but that he was struggling to live at the property. He said that he was struggling to find alternative accommodation through the housing register. He also raised a number of other issues which were not part of his initial complaint, including the property being unsanitary and a risk of violence within the property.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 2 December 2022. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 February 2023. It said that his complaint had been reviewed by an independent tenant appeals panel. It apologised that the works were causing a disturbance but decided that his housing register banding would not be changed due to this issue. It suggested options that may assist with the matter, such as the resident purchasing noise cancelling headphones compatible with his computer, or for him to work from a library during the works. It also advised him to consider the option of a mutual exchange as another possibility for rehousing.
  6. The resident contacted this Service as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said that he wanted his housing banding to be increased or to be rehoused because of the noise caused by the building works. It became a complaint that this Service could investigate on 17 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure, he added new information related to antisocial behaviour and the cleanliness of the property. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that where residents raise additional complaints after the stage 1 complaint response has been issued, these matters should be logged as a new complaint. The landlord is therefore recommended to liaise with the resident as to whether a new complaint needs to be logged regarding these issues.
  2. Similarly, the resident has also told this Service that following the landlord’s final complaint response, his housing register banding has changed. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate these matters as part of this case as the landlord has not yet been given an opportunity to investigate and respond to these matters prior to the involvement of this Service. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  3. The resident has said that both his health and employment have been impacted by the noise in the building and the landlord’s handling of this matter. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about these issues. However, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused to the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman is unable to consider or assess the actions and decisions made by the local authority’s lettings or homeless teams. This is in relation to matters concerning the resident’s housing register application and banding. These complaints are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Before bringing a complaint to the LGSCO, the resident will likely need to have made a complaint to the local authority first. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme.
  5. It is understood that the resident wishes to be rehoused due to noise caused by the building works. However, it is beyond our remit to order the landlord to offer immediate rehousing to the resident. Rather, the Ombudsman’s role is to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures, and best practice.

The landlord’s response to reports of noise caused by building works

  1. On 9 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord with evidence regarding antisocial behaviour from a neighbour, which is not investigated within this report. Within this evidence, the resident also raised concerns with works being carried out at the property. He said that he worked from home and that while he understood the need to upgrade the building, these works were impacting on his employment. He asked for a call to discuss this matter. The landlord sent an email to the resident on the following day. It said it had tried to call him regarding his email and had left a voicemail. It asked him to return the call and listed some availability regarding this. There is no evidence to suggest that a follow-up call was arranged.
  2. On 18 October 2022, the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. He raised concerns with the noise caused by works to the building and said that it impacted his ability to work from home. At the time of the complaint, the only works completed were to erect fencing and scaffolding at the property.
  3. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord investigated the matter with its internal repairs and asset management teams. This was good practice. It said in its stage 1 complaint response that no further works would be completed until a timetable of works were agreed. It reassured him that the contractor would ensure its resident liaison officer contacted all residents before the works commenced and that any questions could be directed to the officer. This was an appropriate response as it showed that the landlord had considered the resident’s vulnerability regarding his mental health and that support would be made available to discuss his concerns after the landlord had finalised the works programme.
  4. This was also in line with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. The policy states that planned improvements through its asset management teams would be completed in consultation with tenants. It states that tenants will be kept informed and given at least 28 days’ notice of any such works that are likely to cause any significant disruption to them.
  5. While the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was fair and appropriate, the resident remained unhappy with its response. He requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 because he felt that a solution had not been found. He said that the works to install the fencing and scaffolding had impacted his employment through being unable to work from home. He said that he appreciated that the works were necessary regarding the cladding on the building but that the noise impacted his ability to live at the property.
  6. There is no evidence provided to this Service to suggest that the landlord had installed the fencing and scaffolding outside of accepted ‘noisy hours’. The Pollution Control Act 1974 limits noisy work, including construction, to between 8am to 6pm on weekdays. The landlord was therefore entitled to install these during such times in preparation for future works. It is unfortunate that this also coincided with the resident’s working hours.
  7. It is acknowledged that the landlord could have been proactive by informing the residents in the building that it would be completing works to install the fencing and scaffolding. This would have provided warning so that it was not unexpected, and it could have given an estimate on how long this would take to complete. At this point, it could have also outlined its intention to have a resident liaison officer available to answer any questions once the programme of works was finalised. This may have offered some reassurance to the resident. While the Ombudsman recognises these shortcomings of the landlord, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that these shortcomings do not amount to service failure or maladministration on the part of the landlord.
  8. The resident has told this Service that he was unhappy with the landlord’s advice given in its stage 2 complaint response. He said that the advice regarding purchasing noise cancelling headphones or using the library would not resolve the issue of being unable to work from home without noise from the building works. The landlord’s response acknowledged that the works would likely cause some noise disturbance, but the landlord is entitled to make repairs to the building, especially in significant cases such as ensuring the cladding was safe. The landlord gave practical advice to the resident in consideration of his concerns and while the resident found this unhelpful, the landlord was limited in the options it could suggest while completing the necessary building works.
  9. The resident has told this Service that he has not yet received the programme of works which was outlined in the landlord’s complaint response. The landlord is recommended to confirm to the resident that it remains its intention to provide a timetable of works to the residents in the building when this is available. The landlord should also consider whether to provide an approximate date of when it intends to provide this information.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing

  1. The complaint about the resident’s request for rehousing and for his banding to be increased is not within the jurisdiction of this Service because it falls within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO. However, the Ombudsman can consider the communication given by the landlord in regard to the resident’s request for rehousing.
  2. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint, he said that he wanted his banding to be changed to allow him to move to a more suitable property. The landlord liaised with the department responsible for the housing register who confirmed that his banding was correctly assessed. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s request as part of its internal complaints process by checking that his banding was correct, even though it was unable to influence the banding directly itself. This information was confirmed to the resident in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response which was provided on 2 November 2022.
  3. During the time between the resident making his stage 1 complaint on 18 October 2022 and receiving the stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2022, the resident contacted his housing officer regarding his housing register application. On 20 October 2022, he asked his housing officer about a property which had become available to bid on through his housing register application. The housing officer responded promptly on 23 October 2022 to confirm that the available property would likely be more suitable based on the resident’s wishes.
  4. The housing officer attempted support to the resident by offering to discuss his banding with the appropriate department to ensure it was assessed correctly. On 24 October 2022, the housing officer contacted the resident and explained that he was in the correct banding for those wishing to transfer properties. It was advised that he could contact the department responsible for the housing register and request a banding increase or review directly. He was provided with details of how to contact the department. This was good practice by the landlord as it showed it was proactive in trying to resolve the issues he was having and gave advice and support to the resident to help him request a review of his banding. The landlord was proactive regarding the resident’s request for rehousing, and its actions showed that it offered support and advice. This was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s compliments, comments and complaints policy in use at the time of the complaint outlined how it would respond to a complaint. The policy stated that it would acknowledge complaints within 3 working days of the complaint being received. It would then respond to the complaint within 10 working days from the date that the complaint was received. It stated that if a response could not be provided within this timeframe, it would contact the resident to agree an extension for an additional 10 working days.
  2. The policy stated that it would acknowledge a request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints process within 2 working days. It stated that it would then convene an independent appeals panel to review and resolve the complaint at stage 2. The policy stated that the panel would include a customer relations officer who was not involved in the stage 1 complaint, an officer who could provide knowledge on the complaint area, and 2 tenant representatives. It said that the panel would then present their findings to the relevant head of service for the complaint area and a stage 2 complaint response would be provided to the resident within 20 working days. It stated that the response time could be extended by a further 10 working days if needed.
  3. The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 18 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and said that it would provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. This was appropriate and in line with both its policy and the Code. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing its response, which was appropriate for it to do so. The response was provided 11 working days after the resident made the complaint and so it is unlikely that a delay of 1 working day would have caused any significant distress or inconvenience to the resident.
  4. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 14 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation on 2 December 2022. This was 14 working days after he escalated the complaint, which was not in line with its policy. The landlord apologised for the delay in acknowledging the complaint, and it was appropriate for it to do so.
  5. On 19 December 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and said that the panel was scheduled to meet on 20 December 2022 but that it was unable to hold the meeting because a panel member was unexpectedly unavailable. It said that it expected to be able to arrange a further panel meeting in early January 2023. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience that this may have caused to the resident, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
  6. Both the acknowledgement and the email from the landlord about the delay in convening the panel were sent by the same officer who responded to the stage 1 complaint. Its policy stated that the stage 2 complaint and panel would be managed by an officer who was not involved in the stage 1 complaint. This would have understandably caused confusion to the resident about whether the appeal would be handled independently. The landlord should be mindful of which officer responds to queries or communications relating to the stage 2 complaint and it should ensure that communications are not dealt with by the same officer who provided the stage 1 complaint response.
  7. There is no evidence provided to this Service to suggest that the landlord provided any updates or communication about the delay caused by it needing to rearrange the panel meeting. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 February 2023 and asked for an update about whether the panel meeting had happened yet as he had not heard anything. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it responded to the resident. The lack of communication from the landlord would have understandably caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as he would have been uncertain as to what was happening with his complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy stated that it could extend the response time by an additional 10 working days if needed but there has been no evidence provided to this Service to show that the landlord agreed a new extension date with the resident.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 February 2023. This was 63 working days after the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The delay in the landlord’s response was not appropriate and would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident. The eventual response did not acknowledge this delay. It would have been appropriate and good practice for the landlord to have acknowledged its failure to respond in line with the timeframes set out in its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. By not addressing this, the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident and offer redress for any distress and inconvenience this may have caused to him.
  9. It is acknowledged that following the landlord’s final complaint response, the landlord has amended its compliments, comments and complaints policy. It has removed the independent appeals panel as part of its stage 2 complaints procedure. This is good practice by the landlord as it may reduce the risk of a similar delay in providing its complaint response in the future.
  10. In consideration of the delay in the landlord acknowledging and responding to the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the delay and for any distress and inconvenience caused by this. It is also ordered to pay £150 compensation for its poor handling of the complaint. The landlord is also ordered to confirm to this Service when it plans to self-assess against the new Code. It should provide a date of when it aims to complete its self-assessment.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of noise caused by building works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response.
    2. Pay £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures identified within the report. This should be paid directly to the resident and not to the resident’s rent account.
    3. Confirm to this Service when it plans to self-assess against the new Code. It should provide a date of when it aims to complete its self-assessment.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should consider liaising with the resident as to whether a new complaint needs to be logged regarding the issues that he raised in his complaint escalation on 14 November 2022. This includes issues related to antisocial behaviour and the cleanliness of the property.
  2. The landlord should consider confirming to the resident that it remains its intention to provide a timetable of works to the residents in the building when this is available. The landlord should also consider whether to provide an approximate date of when it intends to provide this information.