Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Leeds City Council (202204111)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204111

Leeds City Council

6 March 2023


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 disturbance from repair works to a neighbouring property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, the property is a first floor flat.
  2. Repair works to the resident’s neighbour’s property commenced on 16 March 2022. The resident texted the landlord on 25 April 2022 and asked when the works would end, as her sleep was being disturbed by drilling commencing at 8am. She asked why she was not informed of the works, and stated that it was causing her significant disruption as she worked from home.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 16 May 2022 as the repair works had been ongoing for many weeks, including on Saturdays, and the landlord had not consulted her regarding the works. She had tried to contact her housing officer to ask whether a risk assessment had been completed, but had not received a response. She said the works had caused disruption to her work and personal life, and if the landlord had communicated properly she could have made arrangements to work in the office. She also raised concerns regarding the number of vans parking in the street. She wanted the landlord to acknowledge the disruption and the loss of enjoyment caused and offer her compensation.
  4. The landlord’s records note that the final inspection of the completed works at the neighbouring property was carried out on 26 May 2022.
  5. In its final response, of 28 June 2022, the landlord stated that it had identified that repairs were required to the resident’s neighbour’s property, it did not consult neighbouring properties regarding general repairs, nor would it complete a risk assessment. It expected the works to start at 8am, not before, which was in line with the resident’s report. The works were initially expected to take three weeks but the timeframe was extended as additional repairs were identified and it had a limited availability of contractors; it acknowledged it would have been appropriate to have informed the resident at this stage. It stated that although the work took longer than expected, there was no evidence the contractors acted unprofessionally. It acknowledged that the resident should have been provided with contact details for the repairs team and a timescale for the works. It stated that the resident’s housing officer was on annual leave from 3 May 2022 until 18 May 2022, and she had an out of office message on her email, but had not updated her phone voicemail. It had provided feedback to prevent a recurrence of the issue but was unable to offer compensation for the resident’s loss of annual leave or distress caused.
  6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she was dissatisfied that the landlord had failed to notify her that extensive repair works would be commencing, which were likely to cause noise. She stated the noise had an increased impact on her as she was working from home and had experienced a bereavement. She wanted compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by the noise.

Assessment and findings

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for maintaining the structure, fixture and fittings of its properties. As a result, it was appropriate that it completed repair works to the resident’s neighbour’s property as required. The landlord’s repair code of conduct states that it will keep noise and disruption to a minimum, and park vehicles appropriately. The landlord is also expected to ensure repair work only takes place within sociable hours and that it does not constitute a statutory noise nuisance.
  2. It is best practice for a landlord to inform residents of repairs to neighbouring properties if it expects the works to take place for a substantial amount of time and cause disruption. In this case, the landlord stated it would not typically advise residents of general repair works to neighbouring properties, and the works were initially expected to last for three weeks. However, it acknowledged that it would have been appropriate for it to have advised the resident when additional repairs were identified. As it failed to do so, there was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the expected timeframe for the works.
  3. The resident was dissatisfied that the work commenced at 8am and also took place on Saturdays. In response, the landlord advised that the resident’s reports of noise were in line with its expectations, as work was permitted to commence at 8am. It also advised that work had started on Saturdays to ensure the repairs were finished quicker. Ultimately, the landlord would only be obliged to ensure the contractors were not working outside of sociable hours. As the resident had not reported any disturbance outside of sociable hours, the landlord would not be expected to take further action regarding the timings of the work. It is understood that the noise would have been inconvenient to the resident; however, the works were deemed as necessary in accordance with the landlord’s repair obligations so were unavoidable.
  4. Whilst the resident had not reported noise from the works outside of sociable hours, the onus would be on the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports to ensure the noise caused by the contractors was not excessive, assess whether any steps could be taken to limit the noise and confirm its findings to the resident. However, despite the resident initially raising her concerns on 25 April 2022 there is no evidence of the landlord investigating her concerns prior to the final inspection of 26 May 2022. As a result, the landlord failed to take any steps to investigate the resident’s reports, or confirm its position if it deemed further investigation was not appropriate, while the works were ongoing. This meant there was a missed opportunity for the landlord to fully investigate the noise, while the issue was still ‘live’, to ensure it was adhering to its obligations.
  5. There were also communication failings by the landlord, which it identified in its complaint responses. Following the resident initially raising her concerns on 25 April 2022, the landlord advised that it would confirm when the works were due to be completed and ascertain whether a risk assessment had been undertaken, but it failed to provide a further response. When the resident chased a response, the housing officer handling the resident’s queries was on annual leave from 3 May 2022 until 18 May 2022, so there was a further delay. This meant there was a further missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the expected length of the reported disturbance by the works.
  6. In her complaint, the resident stated the landlord’s communication failings prevented her from making alternative arrangements, such as working in the office to limit the disturbance, which the landlord did not address in its complaint response. The landlord therefore failed to demonstrate that it had fully considered the impact of its communication failings on the resident. However, it was reasonable that the landlord took steps of learning to prevent a recurrence of delayed responses due to a staff member being on annual leave, by providing additional guidance to staff to ensure they have an out of office voicemail, and provide alternative contact details.
  7. The resident also raised concerns in her complaint on 16 May 2022 that she was having issues parking her car due to the number of vans. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will “park vehicles appropriately and not run over grass verges”. As a result, the landlord would be expected to investigated the resident’s concerns regarding the contractor’s parking. The landlord assessed the video provided by the resident of the parking and determined that there was no evidence of inappropriate behaviour. The landlord also advised the resident that the contractors needed to park close to the property due to transporting required materials, which was an appropriate reason. Overall, the landlord demonstrated that it reasonably handled the resident’s concerns regarding the contractors’ parking.
  8. Although it was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged its communication failings and identified steps it would take to improve its service, its response was not proportionate to the detriment on the resident in that it failed to offer appropriate compensation to her for those acknowledged failures..
  9. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged its failings, but failed to recognise the detriment to the resident. In this case, the landlord’s communication failings meant the resident’s expectations were not reasonably managed regarding when the works would be completed, which caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident as well as time and trouble in her pursuing the issue. There was also a missed opportunity to properly investigate the resident’s reports that the works were causing a disruption, which the landlord failed to acknowledge. The landlord should therefore award the resident £200 for these failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from repair works to a neighbouring property.

Orders

  1. As a result of the failings identified in this report, and within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation.
  2. The landlord is also to confirm to this service that it has complied with this order.