Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

London Borough of Hillingdon (202104614)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104614

London Borough of Hillingdon

3 May 2022


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 replacement of lighting in the area around the resident’s property and the effect this has had on him.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident lives in a flat, situated on an estate with sheltered accommodation. The landlord is responsible for the lighting on the estate.
  2. The landlord changed the lighting around the estate in September 2020; this was due to the previous lights being dull and below the standards expected and required. The lights were exchanged for LED lights. The resident subsequently raised concerns with the landlord that the lights opposite his property, were shining into his property – namely his bedroom – and causing him disturbance as a result of the brightness. The landlord attended the estate and reduced the lighting to the lowest levels that were possible, according to the landlord. The resident further raised issues with the landlord regarding other lighting near to his property that was also causing a nuisance. The landlord again attended the property to assess the brightness of the lights and reduced the brightness of some of the lights and put one light on a motion sensor so that it would only come on in response to movement, as a resolution to the resident’s concerns.
  3. The resident remained unhappy with the amendments made by the landlord, as he said that two lights were continuing to shine into his bedroom and had not been lowered. The resident felt that the issues should have been resolved sooner, if the landlord had attended at nighttime to witness the light intrusion, which he had requested. The resident raised concerns about staff conduct and comments made by staff in response to his complaint. The landlord issued its complaint response in February 2021. It apologised for the impact of the lighting on the resident. However, after a further inspection on 9 February 2021, the landlord confirmed it had lowered the correct lights to the lowest level possible. The landlord said it was satisfied that it had attempted all reasonable steps to try and rectify the issues, but it could do no more as it had to ensure other residents had adequate lighting for safety reasons. It suggested that the resident close his curtains at night as this was the only remaining solution to the problem.
  4. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s attempts to remedy the lighting concerns, as the lights are still causing a nuisance to him. The resident also requested that the landlord attend at night to view the lights. As a resolution the resident would like for one light to be repositioned and a bracket added to another, to stop the lights from shining into his property.

Assessment and findings

Assessment

  1. A landlord is reasonably expected to ensure that an estate, to which it provides communal lighting, is well lit for health and safety reasons, and ensure that all fire-safety exits are accessible and visible at all times, to allow for safe passage in case of an emergency evacuation of the building. Therefore, the landlord was reasonable in changing the lights around the estate to which it deemed to be insufficient, in the interest of health and safety. This is in line with good practice.
  2. The resident was unhappy with how bright the new lighting was and complained that the lights were shining into his bedroom causing a nuisance to him. The landlord has acted reasonably and has attempted to resolve the concerns of the resident on a number of occasions. This included attending the estate to lower two lights initially; attending again to lower further lights, making one light emergency only, so it would only light up when someone walked past. The landlord also attended the estate out-of-office hours at night, to see the effects of the lights. These were all reasonable attempts from the landlord to find a solution for the resident.
  3. Therefore, the landlord has made reasonable attempts to resolve the resident’s concerns and has acted within good practice, as it lowered most lights that were causing the nuisance and attended at night time – during out-of-office hours – to assess the lights and their impact.
  4. The landlord does not appear to have informed the resident that the out-of-office hours (night time) visit to the estate took place. The resident had been requesting this throughout the complaint process. It was appropriate for the landlord to act upon this request. However, it would have been helpful if it had advised the resident of this visit to reassure him that it had taken his concerns seriously and had carried out a thorough investigation into his concerns.
  5. The landlord also suggested that the resident close his curtains at night to avoid the effects of the lighting. In evidence provided to this Service, it appears that the resident agreed to partially close his curtains at night. The landlord attempted to explain that there would be some low-level lighting into the windows when dark, but that it could be combatted with closing the curtains. This was a reasonable request from the landlord, as it had already lowered the lighting to the lowest levels it could and, therefore, it was an attempt to find another reasonable solution to the resident’s concerns.
  6. A landlord which provides communal lighting to a number of residents would also be reasonably expected to consider the thoughts and concerns of all those residents when deciding whether to adjust the lights. The landlord has provided evidence to this Service that it decided not to lower the lighting levels outside of a property near to the resident because the tenant who lived in the property requested the light not be dimmed for purposes of safety. It was reasonable for the landlord to not lower this light, as it had to consider that particular tenant’s needs as well as the resident’s. It is also important to note that the resident lives on a sheltered-living estate whereby other residents may be vulnerable and have varying needs. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably in not lowering this light to the full extent and considering the needs of other residents on the estate.
  7. The resident also raised concerns about the landlord informing him that other residents had not complained about the lighting and he said this bore no relevance to his complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to mention the lighting being too bright had not been an issue to other residents as part of its explanation that the needs of all residents had to be considered when dealing with lighting issues within the estate. It also made the resident aware that if other residents complained about the level of lighting on the estate, it may have to reconsider the position it had taken to lower certain lights. Therefore, the landlord was acting reasonably when it informed the resident of this.
  8. In the complaint, the resident also suggested that the landlord was acting with ‘favouritism and/or vindictiveness’ towards him and his concerns regarding the lights that are shining into his property. The Ombudsman has not disregarded the resident’s concerns; however, as an independent and impartial arbiter we can only investigate the landlord’s actions based on the available evidence. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord has acted with any ‘vindictiveness or favouritism’. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord was acting reasonably in the circumstances regarding the lighting and tried to find appropriate solutions for the resident.
  9. It appears there may have been a difference of opinion between the resident and a contractor concerning the position of the lights and how much they were intruding into the property. Although the resident was understandably upset by the contractor’s comments, it was reasonable for the contractor to give their opinion regarding the position of the lights, although their opinion was different from that of the resident. It would have been inappropriate for the contractor to comment that “they could look at the lights all day” but ultimately this comment would not mean the landlord should change its position regarding the lights. Also, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to become involved in matters of employment so we cannot order the landlord to take any disciplinary action against its employees or contractors for making inappropriate comments.
  10. This Service acknowledges that the landlord made a comment in a letter to the resident’s local MP which stated that the resident ‘may have an unusual issue with light sensitivity’. The resident was unhappy with this comment and raised this with the landlord. The landlord subsequently apologised to the resident for this comment on 2 February 2021. This Service is of the view that this comment was inappropriate because it was not based on any evidence concerning the resident’s health and may reasonably have given him the impression that the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously. However, the landlord did apologise for this comment and explained it was made with good intentions. In this Service’s view an apology this is sufficient redress to the resident for this error and any distress it caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the replacement lighting in the area around the resident’s property and the effect this has had on him.