Stevenage Borough Council (202408578)

Background

1. The resident is the leaseholder of a 1 bedroom, first floor flat. In February 2023 the landlord commenced a programme of major works in the resident’s building which lasted until May 2024. Both during and following completion of the works, the resident raised issues and snags with the landlord. The resident works from home and has reported having health issues, which made it hard to live and work at the property while works were taking place. She said some reported issues remain unresolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of communal repairs including:
   1. leaking guttering.
   2. communal lighting being too bright.
   3. communal doors not locking, causing a disturbance and also leaking.
3. The resident also reported disruption and damage caused to her property.
4. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communal repairs including:
   1. leaking guttering.
   2. communal light being too bright.
   3. communal doors not locking, causing a disturbance and also leaking.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
   1. the resident’s reports of disruption and damage caused to her property.
   2. the resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons

7. We found that:
   1. The landlord acted promptly to address reports of leaking guttering.
   2. A thorough investigation took place identify and address an issue with the light and door in the communal areas.
   3. The landlord considered the disruption caused by the major works and tried to liaise with the resident to manage her expectations in terms of the impact of the works.
   4. The landlord considered the resident’s claim for damages to the property but explained why it felt there was insufficient proof that the reported issues were caused by the major works.
   5. Its complaint responses complied with its obligations under the complaints policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. On 13 November 2023, the resident reported that guttering was leaking when it rained. The landlord explained a neighbour had reported the same issue, and a repair was arranged for that week.
9. There is no evidence of any further issues being reported until July 2024, when the resident and her neighbour told the landlord that following rainfall the night before, the guttering had leaked again. The landlord made arrangements the same day for a contractor to check if the guttering was deep flow, what capacity it had, and whether anything was blocking the gutter/downpipes.
10. It is not clear when the landlord attended to carry out a repair, but in its response to the resident’s complaint, it confirmed the guttering had been repairs. It apologised for not having advised her when it took place, but explained it had been done as a matter of urgency. It was not essential for the resident to know when the visit was because the work was external, no access was needed and she was not inconvenienced in any way.
11. Although the resident has said there is still an issue with the guttering when it rains but no evidence of further issues being reported has been provided. The landlord has said it has not found the gutters to be leaking since they were adjusted during the defect period. It has explained the gutters have gutter brushes in them, and it is possible these may be restricting the flow of water in heavy downpour, however in its view, this is better than having a costly repair for blockages in underground pipework due to leaf debris. It said it may look to remove the gutter brushes in the future, but would need to be sure the matter was persistent and not just when there was an exceptional downpour. To date, it has seen no evidence of a persistent problem, despite multiple visits during wet weather.
12. There was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the reports of leaking guttering as it responded promptly and took steps to address the issue, which seems to be intermittent. In the event there are more incidents of the guttering leaking a lot, the landlord has committed to considering the matter further.

13. On 16 August 2023, the resident reported an issue with a light fitted outside the communal door entrance during the major works. She explained the light was directly outside her bedroom window and, even with blackout curtains drawn, it caused a nuisance. The landlord responded 2 days later. It explained the light was fitted in February 2023 but this was the first time an issue had been reported. It said the light was located in the same place in all blocks but it would speak with the electrical contractor to see if there was anything that could be done in terms of brightness or installing a sensor.
14. The landlord advised the resident she could report a light nuisance to Environmental Health, but having investigated what could be done about the light, on 10 November 2023, it confirmed the specification of the light was correct and the light fitting had the lowest lumen bulb in it. It also explained the light could not be re-sited as the only place it could move to would be closer to her property which was unlikely to be of any benefit. In addition, it could not remove the light as it was there for the safety of residents. The landlord recommended using a black out blind but as she had said she already had blackout curtains, there was nothing more it could do about the light.
15. On 9 December 2023, the resident told the landlord the light was still causing a nuisance and it was triggered by movements inside her home. In response, the landlord said that having spoken with its contractor it had asked for it to be relocated. In January 2024 it explained that Environmental Health had not said it amounted to a statutory nuisance. However, it could change the light to one with a sensor. It said this would mean that the light would go on and off, so may cause further disturbance. Alternatively, it offered to install correctly fitted black out blinds at its own cost. It explained it would contact other residents to see if they experienced the same issue, to help with identifying any solutions.
16. The resident submitted a video of the light being triggered by her being inside the property and the landlord provided an update on 8 March 2024. It explained the supplier of the light had said it was possible the sensor may be triggered through walls and doors. There had been only one other report of a communal light sensor being activated from inside a home. This was found to be due to the front door being glazed, which the infrared sensor could penetrate much easier than other solid light blocking materials. The landlord said it wanted to investigate the matter further. It could then make an adjustment to the sensor range but also ensure that movement was still detected on the stairs in the hallway, so the area was not left in darkness when light was required.
17. Having attended the property in March 2024, the contractor updated the landlord. It said all light fittings were checked but it found the range of the motion sensors were already on their lowest setting and could not be changed. The landlord’s records show that on 8 April 2024, the light was relocated from directly outside the front door and that the resident had confirmed she found this solution satisfactory.
18. However, in September 2024 the resident mentioned she was still being disturbed by the light level at night, as well as from a light in a neighbouring block. In response, the landlord said it would liaise with the manufacturer of the light to see what could be done.
19. When asked what the current position is in relation to the light, the landlord reiterated its offer to install black out blinds, which was declined by the resident. It has asked the supplier to provide replacement gear trays with 50% reduced output. It said this is on order and the resident has been made aware.
20. The landlord kept clear records that show it consistently responded to the resident’s reports of the light issue. It communicated well with the resident and the contractor and considered a number of different ways to try and address the issue. It investigated the options available and moved the light. It also took further steps to try and improve matters for the resident since receiving the complaint, while needing to balance its health and safety obligations and duty to other residents. Overall, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s in its handling of concerns about the communal light.

21. Correspondence between the resident and landlord in November and December 2023 shows the resident reported an issue with the new communal doors leaking rain-water. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend and it confirmed on 14 December 2023 it was satisfied the issue had been resolved.
22. However, on 22 January 2024 the resident again reported the communal door let in water when it rained. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend following a rainy period in February 2024 but they found no evidence of rain-water present on the floor. On 15 April 2024 the resident again reported the communal doors were allowing water ingress. The landlord arranged for the doors to be resealed.
23. The resident commented that there were still issues with the communal doors leaking, but in the landlord’s complaint responses, it clarified that any further issues needed to be logged as a repair as the major works had finished. Although the resident raised a repair request on 8 December 2024, records show the landlord attended and found its previous adjustments had worked. Although it found no issue with the door, the landlord said it would arrange high pressure water tests in order for the issues to be investigated further. The landlord clearly responded to each report and despite not finding evidence of any issues, it took steps to test the doors and try and resolve matters.
24. The resident also complained about the noise of the buzzer and the doors not locking properly and making a noise. The landlord approached a company regarding the buzzer and the noise it made. It was told that although the level could be changed it would mean they would not be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It investigated changing the buzzer, but decided to not carry out alterations and ensure it remained compliant with its legal obligations to all residents.
25. The landlord also investigated the resident’s concerns over the noise of the doors and that they sometimes did not lock. It said no one else in the block, or in the other 20 blocks, reported an issue. However, attempts were made to ease and adjust the door in the hope this would resolve the issue for the resident. The landlord explained to the resident that the new doors were metal and heavier than the previous ones, so may make more noise. It was satisfied the doors did lock, but there was a delay. It made several adjustments to the doors to make them as quiet as possible.
26. On 27 and 28 February 2024 the resident sent the landlord videos showing the doors not locking and it sent a contractor out to rectify the issue. However, the resident then reported that the doors were slamming shut and someone met with the resident on site on 5 March 2024 to inspect the door. 2 days later, the landlord arranged for the door to be adjusted and sent the resident a video of it no longer banging.
27. The resident told the landlord on 9 May 2024 and 10 June 2024 that the communal door was slamming shut again. The landlord explained on 17 June 2024 that the doors had been installed to numerous blocks and no complaints had been made. However, it would look into solutions which may resolve the issue.
28. The resident reported the door making a noise again in July 2024. The landlord explained it had taken all reasonable steps to adjust the door without compromising its function and the safety of the building. This included slowing the speed at which the doors closed and increasing the delay between closing and locking. It reiterated that the doors were heavier than what was there before and explained there was nothing further it could do.
29. There was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the communal doors. It communicated clearly with her, investigated her repair reports and took steps to address issues as they arose. When it concluded it was unable to do any more, it explained why that was the case.

30. The resident told us the major works caused damage to her property and affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
31. During the works, the resident explained to the landlord that she worked from home and works were causing disruption. She said she had been left with damage to her property. The landlord explained operatives were consistently reminded to be as quiet as possible during the works. It told us it tried to give as much notice as possible for works, acknowledging the resident worked from home. However, sometimes exact times could not be given as operatives were working on multiple blocks simultaneously and where materials were not available for one task they would work on something else. In addition, weather and urgent issues impacted what work they had originally planned to do. It said that wherever possible it tried to help the resident work from home without disruption.
32. We have seen evidence of the landlord explaining this to the resident on 14 June 2023. For example, it had tried to programme the roof replacement so that works to areas above her property only took place on Wednesdays. However, this had not been possible as there was the potential that this would mean works stopping and the roof remaining uncovered. It also explained it could not agree for works to only take place one day each week as it would severely delay the block from completion.
33. It was also noted the resident would only allow access to her property for 20 minutes at a time and the landlord explained to her that this caused difficulties. For example, following a report of her electrics being damaged, it said it would take longer than 20 minutes for a contractor to check and fix them. This prevented it from completing the repairs.
34. While it is accepted the resident found it difficult living and working at home with the works being done, it was not feasible for works to be restricted to certain times, and the landlord attempted to manage her expectations in that respect. It provided a reasonable explanation as to why it could not always do works at times that suited the resident. Major works went on for a long time and the landlord and its contractor had to coordinate works over a large site. We have seen from the correspondence that the landlord was mindful of the resident being unhappy with the noise and claiming damage to her property, and it did address it at the time. However, the resident claimed it continued, so therefore felt the landlord was not doing enough to address it.
35. While some issues raised by the resident during the works were addressed, she also said there was dust and rubble left after a hole in her ceiling was repaired. In addition, the lights in the hall, lounge and bathroom lights stopped working after works were done in her loft and windows and plaster were damaged from scaffolding.
36. In November 2023 the resident explained to the landlord her electrics had been damaged during major works and on 9 December 2023, she said she had arranged for an electrical engineer to visit the property. She says she was told by them that wiring within the roof had been damaged and as a result the property needed rewiring. The landlord said it had been unable to review or fix the electrical issue as the resident had not agreed to allowing access for over 20 minutes. It asked her to provide dates and times when someone could attend to inspect the lighting.
37. On 12 January 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident again about a number of issues and reminded her to let it know her availability for the lighting to be inspected. It invited her to send in a copy of her electrician’s report. The resident responded on 15 January 2024, and while she commented on some points, she did not comment specifically on the electrical issue in her property. The landlord offered to attend on 20 February 2024, however the resident declined the appointment due to having a health issue.
38. The resident has said she sent the landlord evidence in support of a claim for damages in February 2024. We have not seen evidence of this. She has shown us with a quote of £3,190 for electrical rewiring which she said was needed due to damage the landlord caused. In addition, she says £300 worth of damage was caused to plaster and she lost a week’s salary of £567.70 as result of not having broadband after her connection was damaged. She therefore claimed “damages” of £4,057.70.
39. There is reference to the resident losing broadband temporarily but being provided with a dongle by the landlord that addressed that issue at the time.
40. We can see the landlord took steps to try and address the electrical issue at the property initially but there is no evidence of the resident raising the issue further after February 2024, after the landlord had been denied access. That, along with there being no evidence the landlord was ever sent an electrician’s report establishing the cause of the problem, not just a quote for work, meant it had no way of fairly assessing the problem, or considering any possible claim by the resident.
41. The resident did make the landlord aware on 15 September 2023 that she had cracks in her walls and by her windows and she believed they were caused by the major works. The landlord addressed this on 6 October 2023, along with other issues the resident had raised. It said that although the works may have made the situation worse, photographs from the pre-condition surveys showed there were already cracks in the property, prior to works starting. It did though, offer to repair the areas, but was limited to only being able to attend for 20 minutes per visit by the resident. Therefore, she was asked to provide dates and times when it could attend. We have seen no evidence of that information being provided. However, although the landlord explained it did not accept how the cracks had been formed, it used its discretion and offered to carry out repairs.
42. As the landlord was unable to assess the electrics and did not receive an independent report to support the resident’s claim, it could not consider the matter further. We cannot therefore order the landlord to pay the resident the damages requested.
43. The landlord acknowledged the major works were disruptive and took prompt and steps to resolve issues as they were reported. Overall, we find there was no maladministration regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of disruption and damage being caused to the property following major works.

44. The landlord issued a response to the resident’s within 10 working days. It addressed the issues raised and apologised for the time things had taken. It explained compensation had been offered in the past, but noted she reported issues were ongoing. She was therefore seeking more compensation and would be making a further claim.
45. The complaint was escalated the same day. At stage 2, the landlord partially upheld the complaint as the issue with the light in the communal area was still causing the resident an issue. As it had done at stage 1, it agreed to look in to that further but said compensation of £500 it previously offered was reasonable. If the resident had evidence of specific losses she wanted to claim, she should submit these for consideration.
46. At both stages of the complaints procedure, the landlord complied within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It gave consideration to each of the points raised in the complaint and attempted to put things right. Therefore, in terms of the landlord’s complaint handling, there was no maladministration in its handling of the complaint.