Epping Forest District Council (202206787)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206787

Epping Forest District Council

8 November 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:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour’s boiler;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident first contacted the landlord on 5 January 2020 about a loud mechanical “drilling noise” which she believed to be emitting from her neighbour’s boiler. It is not evident if the landlord took any action following this report, and after a significant interval, the resident made a further report about the noise on 31 January 2022. She also submitted video evidence of the noise, which she described as loud and persistent. She also advised the noise was causing her to experience frequent migraine headaches from lack of sleep.
  3. The landlord attended the neighbour’s property on 1 February 2022 to carry out work to the boiler. It opened a stage one complaint two days later as the resident had raised concerns it had not responded to her previous reports of the noise, which she believed to be intentional.
  4. The landlord provided its stage one response on 9 February 2022. It advised that the repair issues with the neighbour’s boiler had been resolved on 4 February 2022. It also advised that an environment health officer had been due to attend her property to assess the noise, but this had since been cancelled as the issue with the boiler had been resolved. It asked her to provide further information of any other noise she was experiencing and also referred her to the local authority’s environmental enforcement team if she experienced any further noise issues.
  5. Throughout February 2022, the resident made several reports of noise from her neighbour’s boiler which continued to affect her sleep regularly. She relayed an opinion from a gas engineer that the neighbour’s boiler was over-pressurised and she requested compensation and the relocation of the neighbour’s boiler. The landlord attended the neighbour’s property again on 21 February 2022 and found the boiler was over-pressurised; it carried out remedial works to rectify this.
  6. The resident reported on 24 February 2022 that the noise was still occurring, although not as loud, and requested her reports be passed on to the environmental enforcement team. It is not evident whether this occurred.
  7. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 3 May 2022. It explained that it had needed time to arrange access to the neighbour’s property and found no service failure in its handling of remedial work to address the boiler noise.
  8. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 6 July 2022 that she remained unhappy because she felt the landlord had not carried out an adequate investigation of the noise which had been “horrific” and had been going on since 2020. She was also unhappy with the environmental enforcement team, who had not attended her property, and the landlord’s response to her Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has raised concerns about the local authority’s environmental enforcement team. The jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman is limited to a local authority’s acts or omissions in its role as a landlord. Complaints relating to an environmental enforcement team are outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, and should be referred to the Local Government and Social Case Ombudsman (LGSCO), who are the correct body to investigate a complaint of this nature.
  2. Similarly, the Ombudsman notes that the resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s response to her FOI request. As with above, complaints about personal data are outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, and should be referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Boiler noise

  1. The landlord’s ‘tenants’ handbook’ states that when a resident experiences nuisance from a neighbour, and that neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord, the resident should approach the landlord initially. When “nuisance is significant, or continues,” the resident should approach the local authority’s environmental health team.
  2. It was evident that the neighbour was also a tenant of the landlord. Therefore, the landlord had an obligation to investigate the noise reported by the resident. Should this have been caused by a repair issue with the neighbour’s boiler, it would also be obligated to carry out any repairs.
  3. It is not evident whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in 2020. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable, however, for a landlord to limit its investigation to a period usually within 6 months of a formal complaint being raised. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not consider its response to this initial report in its formal complaint responses.
  4. Following the resident’s reports in January 2022, the landlord carried out an inspection of the neighbour’s boiler on 4 February 2022. This timeframe is in line with what the Ombudsman would consider best practice for such circumstances.
  5. In its stage on response, the landlord noted it had kept the resident informed during its inspection and subsequent repairs of the boiler. The resident has disputed this position, and this service has not been provided with any communications from the landlord to demonstrate it kept her informed. Given the distress that the resident was experiencing, it would have been frustrating not to have known what steps the landlord was taking.
  6. It was appropriate that the landlord initially attempted to arrange for the environmental health team to inspect the property. Given that its repairs team believed that the boiler had now been fixed it was reasonable that it cancelled this inspection, as it had a reasonable expectation that the noise would now no longer occur. It also appropriately signposted the resident to contact the environmental health team if the problem returned. Given, however, the resident specifically requested that the landlord share her further reports with the environmental health team, it would have been helpful had the landlord either done this and given her an update, or provided her again with information about how to contact them, however, it is not evident this occurred.
  7. Following the resident’s further reports, including one in which she passed on a gas engineer’s opinion that the boiler was over-pressurised, it is evident that the landlord carried out further inspections and works. It is evident that there was some communication from the resident to the landlord on the telephone, however, no evidence has been provided to this service that the landlord provided any follow ups or written communications to the resident confirming what action it had taken or otherwise providing updates. This lack of clear communication would again have caused distress for the resident.
  8. In its final response, the landlord appropriately explained why repairs had not occurred immediately following the resident’s reports, and its explanation that it had taken time to arrange access was reasonable. Given, however, that the resident had raised concerns about its responses to her reports, the fact that this information was only being provided in the formal complaint response and had not previously been given should have been an indication that communications could have been improved.
  9. In summary, the landlord attended to the boiler to carry out necessary repairs to reduce the sound within reasonable timeframes, and it also appropriately signposted the resident to the environmental enforcement team. However, based on the evidence provided to this service, outside of its formal complaint responses, the landlord’s communications were poor and it missed several opportunities to provide formal updates in writing to the resident about the actions it was taken and the expected timeframes for any works. This would have caused frustration for the resident and led her to expend time and trouble in chasing updates. In the circumstances, this amounted to service failure, for which an amount of £100 compensation is appropriate to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  10. A recommendation has also been made below for the landlord to contact the resident and enquire as to whether any noise issues relating to the boiler are still present.

Complaints handling

  1. Given the resident’s concerns, the landlord appropriately chose to investigate her concerns as a formal complaint, and its stage one response was provided within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. Following the resident’s escalation of her complaint in February 2022, however, the landlord did not provide its final response until 3 May 2022, despite having previously advised it would provide its response by 7 March 2022. This is far beyond the timeframe of three weeks noted in the landlord’s policy. The landlord did not provide any interim updates to justify its delay despite multiple requests from the resident.
  3. While this delay did not alter the outcome of the complaint, it would have caused further distress and uncertainty for the resident, and amounted to maladministration in the circumstances. A further amount of £100 compensation is appropriate to reflect the distress caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in regards to its response to the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour’s boiler.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in regards to its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £200, comprising:
    1. £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor communication following her reports regarding her neighbour’s boiler;
    2. £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to contact the resident and enquire as to whether there are any continuing issues with noise from her neighbour’s boiler. If so, the landlord is to communicate the timeframe in which it will carry out any inspections, and additionally the timeframes in which it will carry out any subsequent works. Following any such works, the landlord is to provide an update to the resident confirming the works have been completed.