Leicester City Council (202010875)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010875

Leicester City Council

27 April 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 reports about:
1. Rehousing requests.
2. Anti-social behaviour from an upstairs neighbour.
3. Standard of the property after multiple leaks.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. Rehousing requests.
Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
In the complaint the landlord received on 8 October 2020, the resident requested to be rehoused due to multiple leaks, anti-social behaviour and health issues. The Housing Ombudsman Service investigates complaints relating to a local authority’s activities as a landlord. The complaint about the request to be rehoused is not one the Housing Ombudsman Service can investigate, as the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigates complaints about applications for re-housing dealt with by a local authority.
The complaints about anti-social behaviour from an upstairs neighbour, and standard of the property after multiple leaks, are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and have been considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a ground floor flat. The tenancy commenced in 2008.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms its maintenance responsibilities and sets different timescales for different repairs priorities. These are priority one / emergency – 24 hours; priority two / routine – ten working days; and priority three – eight weeks to 12 months.
The landlord’s conditions of tenancy confirm it is responsible for internal walls, floors and ceilings. It advises tenants are responsible for filling of minor plaster cracks, making good small areas of defective plaster, internal painting and decorating. It advises tenants are responsible for insuring the contents of their home and it is not responsible for loss of or damage to possessions. The landlord’s conditions of tenancy also confirm tenants must not act in a way that causes or is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance, which includes loud noise.
The landlord’s housing anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy and procedure confirms its commitment to ensure quiet enjoyment of homes and to take necessary steps for ASB that cause disturbance to others. All reports are acknowledged within 24 hours and arrangements are made to interview complainants within five working days. It notes each case is unique and requires different actions, however it is expected to record every complaint; interview complainants, witnesses and alleged perpetrators; agree plans of action; regularly update; make referrals to other agencies such as Supporting Tenants and Residents (STAR); use early intervention tools such as interviews, warning letters and mediation; and work with partners such as the local authority’s ASB team. It goes on to outline enforcement options available and states that in all cases, the landlord will act in a reasonable and proportionate manner.
The landlord’s noise control webpage provides information about what actions it can take in response to noise, and outlines that a noise app is now used to assess the suitability of placing noise monitoring equipment in a home.
While the landlord’s housing complaints procedure is now two stages, at the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a one stage complaints procedure in cases where customers were unsuccessful in resolving complaints with a service area directly. It aimed to acknowledge complaints and provide a response timeframe within three working days, and aimed to reach a resolution within 10 weeks of a complaint being received.
The landlord’s compensation policy advises it does not consider compensation appropriate in cases where the complainant has suffered personal injury or damage to property as a result of alleged negligence.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records advise that between January 2019 and January 2020 it attended the property above the resident to repair leaks from a bathroom; a seized kitchen tap; and bathroom pipework. The landlord’s records advise that in August and September 2019, it attended the resident’s property to survey the kitchen and bathroom for damage from a leak and to carry out plastering. On each occasion these were attended within the timeframes of the priorities they were raised under. There are no further reports apart from plumbing issues within the resident’s property.
On 14 September 2020, the landlord’s records advise it received a report of a containable leak from a wash hand basin waste pipe in the property above the resident. This was raised as a priority two repair for completion within ten working days and was repaired on 29 September 2020, ten working days later.
On 24 September 2020, the landlord discussed recent allegations with the resident that he had banged on his neighbour’s door and made threats that resulted in police speaking to him. It was noted the resident explained he had confronted his neighbour about noise, and he confirmed that he would inform the relevant agencies in future rather than take matters into his own hands. The landlord’s records advise the police closed their case after speaking to parties; it spoke to the resident and his neighbour; it issued a warning to the resident as the incident was independently witnessed; and the resident had been referred to STAR.
On 8 October 2020 the landlord received a complaint from the resident which it acknowledged the following day, advising it expected to respond within 15 working days:
1. The resident reported that during his tenancy he had been flooded by the upstairs property 11 times and three times during the most recent tenant’s occupancy, which had resulted in the landlord carrying out specialist works to the kitchen and bathroom. He explained that since occupying the property he had made decorative repairs, installed carpet, laminate and wood flooring, and regrouted the bathroom. He acknowledged he had been informed multiple times that he should have insurance and the landlord was not liable for damages. He acknowledged that he was aware of a public liability form that he intended to complete.
2. The resident explained that his neighbour above him intentionally made noise at all hours and had made false accusations to the police, which led to him not feeling comfortable in the property. He explained he had tried to speak about noise concerns with his neighbour and acknowledged he was aware of an option to report issues to the noise team. He explained that from experience, they took time to come out, and they would be unable to verify his claims unless continuous noise was heard and recorded.
On 13 October 2020, the landlord’s records advise it visited the resident and the property above his to investigate his report that there was a long unresolved issue of an intermittent leak. It was reported that no leak was found, however a shower attachment fitted to bath taps was identified as causing water to run over the bath when used. It was noted that the resident’s neighbour was asked to remove and not use the shower attachment and, if there were further leaks, it would need to be checked if the shower attachment was still in use.
On 14 October 2020, the landlord returned a recent call from the resident. It noted he had received no response to attempts to contact the noise nuisance team via calls and a webform. He reported that since his neighbour had complained about him noise had worsened, and he believed this was being done deliberately. The landlord noted that while the resident was on the phone, a thumping sound was heard for a short period. The resident reported that the issues were affecting his health and wellbeing, he had been having to take medication to help with sleep, and he was going to stay with family. He reported he switched on his phone camera when he left his flat in fear of being accused again. He advised that he saw no option to resolve the situation apart from being moved. Following this, the landlord informed the resident that it would send him diary sheets and contact the noise team.
On 15 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about a different neighbour playing music at unsocial hours, which he had reported to the noise team but they had not done anything about. The landlord’s records advise it discussed this with the noise team the same day, and asked them to contact the resident. The noise team later confirmed they spoke to the resident the following day, and provided details of their monitoring service for both properties the resident complained about.
On 4 November 2020 the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint, after updating the resident that the response would be delayed:
1. In regards to reports of leaks, it noted an operative repaired a leak to the resident’s wash hand basin waste on 29 September 2020. It acknowledged the resident informed the operative about several floods from the property above. It explained that the operative reported there was no evidence of any leak apart from an historic dried stain on the bathroom ceiling, and so no new jobs were raised. It explained the property above would be investigated and if this was believed to be causing damage, necessary action would be taken.
2. In regards to reports of ASB, it noted the resident had been informed to report concerns about noise from the property above to the noise team to investigate.
Between 1 November and 8 November 2020, the landlord’s records advise the resident submitted webform reports with reports of jumping, banging, shouting, running, pounding and washing machine use. The landlord’s records advise these were referred to the noise team for action and to the landlord for information.
On 9 November 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report the neighbour in the property above had been “banging the floor with a hammer for 10 hours.” The landlord discussed this with the resident who confirmed he had reported it to the noise team via webform but did not have a contact number for them. The landlord notes it arranged for the noise team to email the resident their number, and spoke to his neighbour. The landlord notes the resident reported that noise continued after it spoke to his neighbour, following which he was advised to contact the noise team with the number he had been provided. The landlord notes it subsequently sent a warning letter to the resident’s neighbour.
On 12 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report his neighbour stomping on the floor for the past hour. The landlord notes it informed the resident to contact the noise team and follow their instruction, and explained the need for evidence to be gathered by the noise team to allow enforcement action.
On 20 November 2020, the landlord notes it contacted the resident concerning the status of the noise issue. He reported noise continued and that he was completing and returning diary sheets as instructed by the noise team. It was noted he expressed lack of faith in the process, following which it was explained he could not be moved without attempts to tackle the issue and relevant evidence being obtained of the noise.
On 25 November 2020, the landlord notes receipt of a letter from the resident forwarded by the local authority’s housing allocations team. The landlord notes it had spoken with the resident and the letter was forwarded to the noise team who were working with the resident about his noise concerns. The further correspondence from the resident restated previous correspondence and advised a reluctance to build a case against his neighbour, as he just wanted to move out and for the landlord and whoever moved into the property to deal with the issue. He queried if he could not be moved based on his complaint and health issues he had detailed.
On 26 November 2020, the landlord was updated by the noise team about their actions in response to the resident’s noise reports. The noise team confirmed they had contacted the resident in October 2020 and his neighbour in November 2020. The noise team noted there were no witnesses to the noise nuisance and visits to properties were not occurring due to Covid-19, however the resident was on a waiting list for a noise monitoring recorder.
In January 2021, the landlord notes the resident applied to join the housing register and reported he was staying with relatives due to the noise, was looking to move and would update when he had found somewhere. He was asked to allow the landlord to help him by following correct noise procedure however he advised he had lost patience.
The resident subsequently complains that the landlord’s response was delayed and had not acknowledged health issues and a request to be moved. He explains that working with the noise team was not working, as there was a long waiting list for a monitoring device.
The landlord subsequently advises it was not aware of any damage caused to the resident’s property. It advises its policy in connection with leaks is to carry out necessary repairs such as repair leaks and “make good.” It explains that if a tenant feels they have suffered any other loss such as damage to furniture, an insurance claim is sent and handled by its insurance services. It explained that in this case no insurance claim was requested or sent. It advises it had not received any further repairs queries from the resident, however it would be happy to carry out an inspection at the resident’s convenience and when restrictions allow.

Assessment and findings

Anti-social behaviour from an upstairs neighbour

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, the options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include the resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to make an assessment of the noise the resident experienced and decide if this was grounds for the resident’s desired outcome. However, it can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s contemporaneous records advise it discussed ASB issues with the resident and his neighbour, and prior to its complaint response had discussed issues with the local authority’s noise team and confirmed to the resident that he should submit further reports to the noise team.
When the resident contacted the landlord about lack of action/response from the noise team to his reports, the landlord took action which resulted in the resident being swiftly contacted by the team, and after further difficulties were raised, it also ensured the resident was provided a direct number for the team and verified he received this.
When the resident contacted the landlord to report of noise continuing, its contemporaneous records advise it signposted him to the noise team and called and wrote to the alleged perpetrator concerning the unsubstantiated noise.
The landlord’s contemporaneous records advise that after the resident submitted diary sheets and noise reports, in November 2020 the noise team placed the resident on a waiting list for a noise monitoring recorder, in order to record evidence of the noise.
The above demonstrates the landlord took reasonable action to meet its obligations to consider ASB allegations it received; to discuss these with parties involved; and to work with partners such as the noise team to gather evidence on which to consider further action. The noise team then acted reasonably and in accordance with its publicised commitments to place the resident on a waiting list for noise monitoring equipment, after using his reports and diary sheets to assess his suitability for noise monitoring equipment.
When the resident complained to the landlord, in the Ombudsman’s view it could have provided more detailed response to the resident’s ASB concerns and outcome sought, and the response was delayed by three working days. This Service’s new complaint handling code advises that landlords should communicate the outcome of a complaint and reasons for decisions in writing.
However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this did not have a significant impact on the complaint. The landlord provided advance warning to the resident of a short delay in its response and responded overall in a reasonably timely manner. According to the landlord and resident’s records, the resident was made aware outcomes relied on building an evidence–based case, and at that point limited and unsubstantiated reports had been made. This Service also recognises that ASB reports have increased in the housing sector during Covid-19, while visit restrictions and increased demand for noise monitoring equipment have impacted investigation. While the Ombudsman acknowledges and understands the resident became frustrated the issue was not being resolved as quickly as he would have liked, the landlord was not unreasonable in requiring evidence to take further action and was clearly striving to ensure this was gathered as soon as was possible given circumstances.
In this case, overall the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from an upstairs neighbour.

Standard of the property after multiple leaks

The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints are limited by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’), which sets out the type of complaints which the Ombudsman will and may not investigate.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”
While the resident’s complaint includes leaks experienced throughout his tenancy, this Service’s investigation is limited to his most recent report in September 2020. While the Ombudsman understands that it will have been frustrating for the resident to have experienced leaks from above during his tenancy. this is because there is no evidence that he raised a formal complaint about the earlier leaks at the time that they occurred.
When the resident reported a leak in September 2020, the landlord met its commitment in its repairs policy and repaired a wash hand basin leak within ten working days.
When the resident raised further concerns about leaks, the landlord carried out inspection. It did not identify evidence of damage in the resident’s property that it was responsible for, and it asked the resident’s neighbour to stop use of a shower attachment that could result in leaks to the resident’s home.
These demonstrate the landlord accepted and met its repairs obligations in a timely way, appropriately conducted further investigation of the resident’s concerns, and took reasonable action on issues it identified.
When the resident complained to the landlord, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it could have provided more detailed response to his concerns about damage to his property, and as this was already available, it could also have included the findings of its 13 October 2020 inspection in addition to the findings of its 29 September 2020 visit. This Service’s new complaint handling code advises that landlords should communicate the outcome of a complaint and reasons for decisions in writing.
However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this did not have a significant impact on the complaint. This is because the landlord did not make any findings that affect the outcome and according to the resident’s complaint, he had clearly been appropriately recommended insurance and advised that he could submit a public liability claim if he held the landlord responsible.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the standard of the property after multiple leaks was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour from an upstairs neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the standard of the property after multiple leaks.

Reasons

There is limited evidence to support the resident’s allegations of noise. The landlord took appropriate action to discuss noise issues with the resident and his neighbour. The landlord took appropriate action to facilitate engagement between the resident and the relevant department to gather any evidence that may support his allegations.
The landlord responded to the most recent report of a leak in accordance with its repairs policy. It took appropriate action to carry out further inspection to assess the resident’s concerns and to confirm its repairs obligations. It took appropriate action when it identified a possible cause of future ingress.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to offer the resident an inspection, at his convenience and when restrictions allow, to review any further concerns about damage caused by leaks.
The landlord to review the level of detail and guidance provided in responses to complaints against the Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord to provide the resident with an update on the expected waiting time for installation of a noise monitoring recorder.