Gentoo Group Limited (202008205)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008205

Gentoo Group Limited

6 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the works in the property above, including its decision not to install soundproofing.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 1 October 2001.
3. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to investigate and respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two; where these timeframes are not possible, the landlord will communicate this with the complainant and agree a new date.
4. On 3 February 2020 the landlord acquired the property above the resident’s and extensive works were required to it, which commended around 20 February 2020.  The works were due to be completed by 31 July 2020 but were delayed to 17 September 2010, which the landlord explains was due to the impact of Covid-19 and sourcing materials, which also meant that the work was not continuous.
5. The landlord has said that it has been unable to provide the Ombudsman with works records, however, due to it terminating its contract with the company who carried out the works.
6. The landlord has stated too, that it asked the contractors in advance of starting the works, to be mindful of noise and that it offered to meet with the resident to discuss the works that would be going ahead, which was declined by her.  It has also said that it made several phone calls throughout the course of the works, asking the contractors to keep noise to a minimum. Records of conversations with the contractors have not been provided.
7. On 21 July 2020 the resident contacted her local MP regarding her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the works at the property above hers, including the length of time it was taking and the noise and impact on her. The resident wanted sound proofing installed due to the disruption, which she said she had discussed with a member of staff previously.  
8. On 31 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident (via her MP).  It explained that the member of its staff referred to had since left the organisation so it was unable to ascertain what exactly was discussed.
9. It reassured the resident that the works were temporary, however and were due to be completed by 31 July 2020 and for these reasons did not believe that noise insulation was necessary.  The landlord also advised that it had asked the contractor not to work on weekends, as the resident had said that work had taken place on a Sunday.
10. On 7 August 2020 the resident reported a leak into the bathroom of the property from the property above, which was resolved by the landlord, however, with the works ongoing, the resident continued to contact her local MP about the matter, doing so on 18 and 22 August 2020. 
11. In her letter of 18 August 2020, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the level of plaster and dust as a result of the works and the impact of this on her including having to breathe it in, not being able to hang washing out and not being able to open her windows.  She was further dissatisfied with the continued level of noise being made, as well as noise from the radio, works starting very early in the morning and the leak that was caused.
12. On 17 September 2020 works were completed, however, remedial works were later required.
13. On 18 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident via her MP.  It explained that it had again spoken with the contractors regarding noise and not working before 8am or at weekends, although the works were now complete.  The landlord acknowledged the frustration caused by the leak and offered to redecorate the resident’s bathroom once the Covid-19 restrictions had eased. It reiterated that it would not install sound proofing for the reasons already described.
14. On 19 September 2020 the resident contacted the landlord again about her dissatisfaction and on 19 November 2020 made a formal complaint.  As resolution to her complaint, the resident wished for soundproofing be installed as she was concerned about potential noise transference from new tenants.  The resident also wanted a structural survey to be undertaken as she said the ceilings at the property were cracking and bowing since the commencement of the works at the property above.
15. On 4 December 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure.  In its response the landlord apologised for the length of time the works in the property above had gone on for during the pandemic and that works had taken place at weekends despite the landlord’s request that the contractors did not do this. 
16. It recognised the disruption this caused and apologised that the resident felt that the landlord’s employees made her feel like a “pest” in her contact with it, explaining that interactions with tenants should be compassionate and professional.
17. In terms of soundproofing the landlord advised that soundproofing is not something it would do.  The landlord noted that the resident had previously suggested paying for soundproofing herself and said that she could make a request to carry out these works herself.  It offered to carry out a structural survey once the Covid-19 restrictions were lifted and said it would carry out decoration works in the bathroom, following the leak from the property above, if she wished.
18. On 6 December 2020 the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure.
19. On 22 December 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. The landlord apologised for any miscommunication or misunderstanding but again said that it had no record of having agreed to install sound proofing and that this was not something it had ever done or would do. 
20. It apologised again that the works to the property above took longer than anticipated and acknowledged the disturbance this had caused.  In recognition of this, the landlord offered the resident a £50 decorating voucher as a gesture of good will and reiterated its offer to decorate the bathroom.  The landlord added that noise transference when living in a flat is inevitable but said it would advise the new tenant at the property above that they are unable to install laminate or wood flooring, to help reduce any potential noise issues.

Post complaint

21. On 15 March 2021 the remedial works commenced but following the resident complaining about this, the works were put on hold until 12 April 2021 to ensure they could all be completed in one week, so as to minimise further prolonged disturbance.  They were completed on 16 April 2021.
22. On 14 April 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to arrange for the structural survey to take place.
23. On 22 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident again in respect of her complaint. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience of the further works and advised that it had refunded one week’s rent into the resident’s rent account in recognition of this.
24. It maintained its decision not to soundproof the property, explaining there was not a viable solution.  It advised that it would supply acoustic underlay to the new tenant at the property above, however and offered £100 compensation as a gesture of goodwill and reiterated its offer to decorate the bathroom.
25. On 27 April 2021 a structural survey was undertaken at the property.  There is no information as to the outcome of this.  However, the resident has advised this Service that the surveyor who attended informed her that he would recommend that no heavy works should be carried out in the flat above, a brick had been dislodged and that he was unable to inspect the flat above to confirm whether the floor was wooden or concrete.

Assessment and findings

26. The landlord undertaking extensive works at the property above the resident’s was inevitably going to cause a level of disturbance due to its proximity and the duration – even in circumstances that the works had been completed within the target timeframe – and this was aggravated by the fact of the national lockdown due to Covid-19.  This is unfortunate, however, having acquired the property, the landlord was entitled to undertake the works required.
27. The landlord acted appropriately in anticipating a level of inconvenience and offering to meet with the resident to speak about this in advance of the works taking place.  The resident was not obliged to take this offer up, however, in making the offer, the landlord’s actions demonstrated an appreciation of the situation and an attempt to communicate and be open and transparent about it with the resident.
28. On being aware of the resident’s dissatisfaction, including noise disturbance, the landlord has said it spoke with its contractors to ask for noise to be kept to a minimum as well as other conversations around work not taking place at weekends.  Although records have not been provided of these conversations – and a recommendation has been made in this regard – operating on the basis that these conversations did take place, the landlord acted appropriately, responding to the resident’s concerns and seeking to resolve them.
29. What is clear, is that the works took longer than anticipated and did cause a disturbance, most notably by the leak to the resident’s bathroom.  This was unfortunate, however, the landlord was responsible for remedying this, which it did do and offered to redecorate the bathroom, which was reasonable, as it was not required to do this and ordinarily a resident would be expected to use their own home contents insurance to cover such an eventuality.
30. Even with the best of intentions, works sometimes do take longer than anticipated and the unforeseen circumstances of the pandemic meant that this was the case.  The landlord has acknowledged this in its responses to the complaint and explained the reason for the delay, apologising for the ongoing disturbance and offered £100 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.  The landlords offer was reasonable because compensation is not an automatic right in circumstances where works run over time.  Moreover, the landlord has taken seriously the complaint, including the quality of service received from the contractor concerned and terminated the contract as a result.  
31. The landlord was entitled to undertake the remedial works required and in doing so, reasonably considered the further disturbance that this would cause to the resident.  Having initially put them on hold, it considered, taking into account the length of time to complete the substantive works, that the best course of action would be to continue with the remedial works.  This meant that they could quickly be completed, drawing a line under the matter, preventing any later or protracted further inconvenience. The landlord considered the impact on the resident in this regard and took the steps it felt were least impactful and reimbursed a week’s rent for the time the remedial works were taking place, which was a reasonable step for the landlord to take.
32. The landlord was not obliged to install soundproofing irrespective of what its former employee may have indicated and the landlord apologised for any miscommunication or misunderstanding in this regard.  The landlord made it clear on multiple occasions that it would not be doing this and it was entitled to make this decision.  The reason it gave – that the works and noise disturbance was temporary, was an accurate and reasonable reason.  The resident’s concern about future noise transference from a tenant or tenants was addressed by the landlord in it advising her that any new tenant would not be able to lay wooden or laminate floor and that it would pay for acoustic underlay above.  Paying for acoustic underlay is ordinarily a tenant’s responsibility and the landlord in offering this, demonstrated its continued efforts to help address and resolve the situation and any future arising situation.  
33. The landlord was not obliged to install soundproofing at the property as this would amount to an improvement, rather than repair, which it is not required to make. The resident is entitled to make an application to undertake this work herself, which the landlord has communicated to her. 
34. The landlord did consider whether sound proofing by way of installing a false ceiling in the resident’s property would help reduce any noise transference, post-complaint, but determined that this would render her space inappropriately small.  The landlord’s consideration of this was fair, given that it was not required to undertake these works and did not need to consider alternatives such as this.
35. Although results of the structural survey have not been made available to this Service, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged this, having been notified of cracks appearing at the property since the works in the property above commenced. The landlord responded to the complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints policy at both stages one and two responded appropriately and reasonably in the ways described.

Determination (decision)

36. Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:

“At any time, the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’”.

37. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

38. There was reasonable redress by the landlord insofar as it was entitled to undertake the works to the property above and offered to speak to the resident about the works at the very outset, having anticipated some inconvenience.  The landlord took seriously the resident’s concerns in speaking to the contractors about the issues raised and ultimately terminating the contract.
39. The landlord was not obliged to install soundproofing as this would amount to an improvement of the property, rather than repair, which it is required to undertake in law.
40. In its responses to the complaint, the landlord demonstrated an appreciation of the situation and offered an apology and compensation, in addition to the offering to redecorate the bathroom and carry out a structural survey, as well as latterly reimbursing one week’s rent to cover the period of remedial works. 
41. These actions sufficiently provide redress to the complaint which essentially about the inconvenience of works that the landlord was entitled to undertake and a request to install soundproofing which it was not obliged to do.

Recommendations

42. The landlord is recommended to re-offer (if not already done so or taken up by the resident) the £100 compensation and offer to redecorate the bathroom.
43. The landlord (if not already done so), is recommended to provide the resident with the outcome of the structural survey and to undertake any identified necessary works and inspections within a reasonable period of time.
44. The landlord is recommended to review its record-keeping procedures, ensuring that records of calls and emails made to contractors are documented. The landlord to note that even where a relationship is terminated with a contractor it is able request repair records for its properties and tenants.