Lincoln City Council (201906536)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906536

Lincoln City Council

2 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 concerns how the landlord handled reports of:
1. noise and vibration from the water pipes in the resident’s property.
2. noise and vibration from the water pipes in the property historically.

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, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

How the landlord handled historical reports of noise and vibration from the water pipes in the property

Paragraph 39(o) of the Scheme states that this Service will not consider matters which “the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”.
The resident first raised her concerns regarding the water pipes in the property in September 2016. The landlord opened a formal complaint into the matter and sent a stage one complaint response on 23 March 2017, then a stage two response on 19 April 2017. The resident brought her complaint to this Service and an investigation report was sent on 8 May 2018. Therefore, although the historic issues provide context to the current situation, elements considered in the previous Housing Ombudsman case will not be reconsidered in this report.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a house.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. When a complaint is raised, the landlord will aim to acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a stage one response within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

On 9 October 2019 the resident requested to raise a complaint relating to the ongoing issue of vibrations from pipes in the property. The landlord replied on 10 October 2019 and informed the resident that it would not open a new complaint into a matter that had previously considered by both it and this Service.
On 29 October 2019, the resident’s representative wrote to the landlord and requested it reconsider its decision. Once the landlord had received permission from the resident, it wrote to the representative on 7 November 2019 and explained the actions it took during the previous complaint process and that no vibrations in the property had been detected.
Following further emails sent by the resident requesting to open a complaint, the landlord called the resident on 12 November 2019 and arranged an appointment for 22 November 2019 to investigate her concerns.
The landlord’s notes of the 22 November 2019 appointment state that it was informed by the resident that she heard a mild humming when she used cold water and that due to loose pipes under the floorboards she experienced a vibrating sound. The resident also informed the landlord that she had contacted the water company regarding the water pressure in the area as that could be the source of the issue.
The notes of the appointment go on to state that the landlord informed the resident that loose pipes would make a knocking sound rather than vibrating. The operative opened all the taps without observing any noise, and spoke to her neighbours who advised that they had not experienced any issues with noise from the water pipes.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 December 2019. It summarised the 22 November 2019 visit and informed her that based on its findings it would not be taking further action. It also stated that it was aware that the water company had visited the resident on 22 November 2019 and did not detect any noise from the water supply.
The resident replied on 23 December 2019 and disputed the landlord’s comments about the water company. She said that she was informed by the water company’s operative who attended that there was a vibration and humming noise and that this was likely caused by loose pipes from a neighbouring property.
On 3 January 2020 the water company wrote to the resident and passed on its job notes. This described visits by the company to her property on 22 and 29 November 2019. The notes stated that the operative could not hear any noise from the resident’s property during the 22 November 2019 visit, but as the water is a shared supply the issue could be from another property.
The water company’s notes from the 29 November 2019 visit state that it visited several other properties where no noise was detected and that the water pressure for the area was normal. The resident forwarded the notes to the landlord on 5 January 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 January 2020. It informed her that it was satisfied that the issues she had raised related to the previous complaint and had been properly investigated. It confirmed that an operative visited on 3 January 2020 to make adjustments to the stop tap and that while it would continue to respond to any repair requirements raised by the resident, it would not consider any further complaints by the resident relating to noise from the pipes.
The resident replied on 9 January 2020 and asked the landlord to listen to the call made to it by the water company’s operative, who had confirmed that he heard vibrations from the pipes. The landlord wrote back to the resident on 21 January 2020.
It informed the resident that it had listened to the call recording where the operative did state that he could hear vibration. However, this was not included in the operative’s report sent to the water company. The landlord stated that it would be willing to install a water hammer reducer, which was designed to absorb changes in water pressure in a property, but that it would not consider opening a new complaint into the matter.
On 12 November 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint. She described the elements of her complaint as issues with loose floorboards and that she had to turn off the water in the property due to vibrations and a humming sound.
An internal landlord email sent on 13 November 2020 stated that it would raise a complaint and arrange an appointment to inspect the floorboards, but that it would not consider the element of the complaint relating to vibration and noise from the pipes.
The landlord visited the property on 20 November 2020 and then sent a stage one complaint response. The landlord apologised for the trouble and inconvenience that the issue had caused the resident and confirmed that following its visit to the property, it had arranged an appointment for a joiner to visit on 15 February 2021 to repair the affected floorboards.
On 6 December 2020 the resident wrote to this Service and stated her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had progressed her complaint and that it had refused to consider the issue of vibration and noise from the pipes in the property.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 4 January 2021 and requested that it consider opening a formal complaint into vibration and noise from the pipes in the property that had occurred since the prior complaint process into the issue had concluded.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 January 2021, confirmed that it had opened a complaint and that it aimed to provide a response within ten working days.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint on 8 January 2021. It informed her that it had not upheld the complaint on the grounds that it had visited her property on numerous occasions and had not witnessed any noise and/or vibration, that it had installed noise monitoring equipment on two occasions where only background noise was recorded, and that both her property and her neighbour’s property were inspected for any structural or technical problems and nothing was found.
The landlord concluded the response by suggesting as a resolution to the complaint that the resident consider moving properties and that it would support her if she made this decision.
The resident replied on 11 January 2021 and informed the landlord that she did not want to move out of the property and that she had spoken to her neighbour who and said that nobody had checked their property for loose pipes.
The landlord replied to the resident on 11 January 2021 and confirmed that it had escalated her complaint to stage two of its internal process. It then sent a stage two complaint response on 28 January 2021.
The landlord informed the resident that following a review of the complaint that it was satisfied with its position set out at stage one. It noted that it had carried out all repairs at the property and made efforts to reduce any potential for water hammer occurring. It also informed the resident that it would continue to monitor the situation for the next six months and requested that the resident keep a noise diary and record the date, time and location of any noise she experienced.
The landlord then confirmed that its internal complaint process had been exhausted and advised the resident on the steps to take to bring her complaint to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.
Following the end of the complaints process, the landlord and resident continued to correspond over the matter. On 25 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident’s Member of Parliament (MP) following an enquiry. It explained the action it had taken and that it continued to monitor the situation, but that it was unable to resolve an issue without any corroborative evidence of noise and/or vibration.
On the evening of 11 May 2021, a plumber visited the property and undertook an inspection. The plumber’s report states that no noise or vibration was detected and that the taps, toilet and boiler were checked with no issues identified. The plumber noted that the fridge in the kitchen emitted a slight buzzing noise, but that the resident informed him that this was not the noise that she was hearing.

Assessment and findings

Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 concerns noise nuisance and inspections. Section 79(1)(g) of the act states that “noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance” constitutes statutory noise nuisance.
The landlord took appropriate action in line with its obligations by visiting the property to ensure that it was in compliance with Section 79(1)(g). The landlord also worked with the water company and inspected neighbouring properties to establish if this issue had been experienced by other residents.
The landlord explained that none of its operatives had witnessed the noise and vibration as described by the resident, nor did any of the residents in the other properties.
When this was disputed by the resident, the landlord opened a new complaint into the matter. The landlord explained what action it had taken and why it was unable to uphold the complaint. The landlord also informed the resident that it would continue to monitor the situation and act on any evidence that it was provided with.
Following the end of the complaint process, the landlord continued to correspondence with the resident. It wrote to her MP and explained what action it had taken and also arranged a further inspection of the property by a plumber.
The resident wrote to this Service on 28 February 2021 and described a recent hospital appointment where her current health status and the effect on her health that vibrations could cause were discussed. The resident also raised health concerns with the landlord throughout this case.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused her and the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the noise posed a risk to health. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions. This is a legal process, and she should seek independent legal advice if she want to pursue this option. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this matter further.
The Ombudsman has not disregarded the resident’s concerns about the noise or the limitations of the inspections. The Ombudsman also notes that the water company’s operative who attended the property reported verbally that they heard vibrations. However, this was not heard by any other operatives who visited and was not mentioned in the operative’s written report to the water company.
The landlord offered to fit a hammer reducer in response to the water company’s report. This was a reasonable response as the hammer reducer may reduce the noise and it would not be possible to tell if this would be successful until it had been fitted.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident wants the neighbouring properties to be inspected for loose pipes and this has not been done as part of the landlord’s investigations. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the recommendations of appropriately qualified contractors and staff when reaching conclusions about the need for repairs and further inspections. Whilst it was suggested that the noise may be caused by loose pipes in other properties, no other residents had reported hearing noises and no operatives, including those from the water company suggested that it was necessary to inspect other properties. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to conclude that an inspection of other properties was not necessary. In deciding whether to carry out such an inspection, the landlord was obliged to balance the likelihood that it would resolve the problem against the inconvenience such an inspection would cause to other residents who had not reported any issues with their own properties.
Overall, there is no evidence of service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled reports of noise and vibration from the water pipes in the resident’s property.

Reasons

The landlord has shown that it took the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from the water pipes seriously. It arranged a number of inspections of the pipes and explained in detail during the complaint process why it had not upheld the complaint based on the conclusions of the inspections.