Guinness Housing Association Limited (202124583)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124583

Guinness Housing Association Limited

18 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from planned maintenance works in her building.

Background

1. The resident is a shared leaseholder, in a ground floor flat of a communal building.
2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 3 December 2021, as she was dissatisfied with the ongoing planned works to the roof, due to noise from the use of the skips, generator and an instance of debris blowing around at night. She said it was disrupting her sleep as she worked anti-social hours. She also said the landlord’s communication regarding the works had been poor and she was not advised that the skips would be placed under her bedroom window.
3. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it said that the work commenced at 8am and as the work took place on the roof, the noise on the ground floor should be minimal. It said the skips would not be filled until later in the day, and they were only emptied once a week and the generator was necessary for welfare facilities for the contractors. It added that the noise with the debris was caused by a storm and was not a regular occurrence.
4. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said that the works had been ongoing for over nine months and the landlord had failed to explain the implications of the works. She did not think the landlord had supported her and she wanted compensation for the disruption.
5. In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident has said the work is still ongoing at her building and has been delayed due to supply issues. She has commented that the generator is left on when the operatives are not on site which is causing excessive noise.

Assessment and findings

6. In accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord must renew the roof foundations as necessary. Therefore, it was obliged to repair the roof, as it was letting in water. The lease agreement also states “The right for the Landlord and its surveyor or agents with or without workmen and others at all reasonable times on notice to enter the Premises for the purpose of access to the roof void”. Reasonable hours are considered between 8am and 6pm, so the landlord should ensure that the works, and consequent noise, are limited to these times, except in the case of an emergency repair where access may be required outside normal working time. The major works would understandably cause some level of disruption and inconvenience to residents and whilst the landlord should take reasonable steps to minimise any disruption it would not generally be possible to remove it completely.
7. Upon receiving the resident’s reports of noise disturbance, the landlord was required to investigate the reports and ensure that the noise caused by the contractors was not excessive and assess whether any steps could be taken to limit the noise. The landlord investigated the reports of noise by discussing the resident’s specific concerns with the lead contractor, regarding the volume, frequency and timing of the noise.
8. In her complaint, the resident stated that she was not informed prior to the works that the skips would be placed in close proximity to her flat. She said that the skips were often filled up and emptied at 8am, while she was sleeping, due to her working unsociable hours. In its complaint response, the landlord explained that the contractors started work at 8am, so the skip would not usually be in use until later in the day as they had to remove material from the roof first. It also stated that the skips were only emptied once a week. The resident also raised concerns about noise from the generator. The landlord explained that it was necessary for the heating, hot water and lighting to the welfare facilities onsite for contractors. As the noise was determined to be a necessary part of the works, the landlord would not be expected to take further action to reduce it.
9. The landlord also investigated the resident’s concerns regarding debris blowing around at night, preventing her from sleeping. It apologised and said that the noise was caused by a storm and advised it would not be a regular occurrence. While it is acknowledged that the resident felt the landlord could have taken further steps to prevent the noise, as the storm was predicted, the landlord cannot be held responsible for noise caused by natural events and it was reasonable for the landlord to continue the works although a storm was predicted (provided relevant health and safety measures were taken) to prevent avoidable delays which would have affected all residents in the building.
10. It may have been helpful for the landlord to investigate further, including providing the resident with noise diaries to document times of the noise or visited the property to assess the noise itself. However, ultimately, the landlord would only be obliged to ensure the contractors were not making noise before 8am or after 6pm. As the work did not commence until 8am and the resident had not reported noise disturbance before 8am, the landlord would not be expected to take further action.
11. In her complaint, the resident raised concerns that the landlord did not advise her of specific details before the works began, including the use of the generator and the location of the skip below her bedroom window. The landlord demonstrated that it took steps to advise residents of the works, as it sent out newsletters on and held meetings, before and during the works, to discuss the scope of the works and the progress. However, the landlord stated that it was not standard practice to advise residents on specific details of the works, such as the location of equipment, prior to the work commencing. As a result, it said that it had identified that it could learn from the outcome of the complaint and provide residents with more specific information about site equipment. It also would have been helpful for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations regarding how long it expected the works to continue for.
12. Overall, the noise caused by the planned works has been deemed to be unavoidable and although the inconvenience caused to the resident is acknowledged, the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs and subsequent complaint was reasonable. The resident has requested compensation as a result of the disruption due to the works. However, as there have been no failings found in the landlord’s handling of the issue, the landlord would not be expected to award compensation.
13. It is noted that the resident has raised further issues in recent correspondence to the Ombudsman regarding delays in completing repairs and the running of generators when the operatives are not on site. As these specific points were not raised through the landlord’s complaint process, the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond to the issues raised. The Ombudsman can only investigate matters which the landlord has had the opportunity to respond to through its complaints process. Therefore we cannot consider the recent issues as part of the current investigation. The resident may be able to raise a new complaint to the landlord about the ongoing problems with the repairs, if she wishes to.

Determination

14. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from planned maintenance works in her building.