Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not carried out alterations to his property to address noise issues, which was the agreed remedy from his previous complaint to the Ombudsman, and it did not deal with a leak from a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council sought to pursue the project to alter Mr X’s property or in the way the Council handled the issue of a leak.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not carry out the agreed remedy for his previous complaint and did not deal with a leak from a neighbouring property. He was concerned he will now have noise problems from neighbours and an ongoing problem with a leak into his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered information from:
• Mr X’s complaint, further documents he has sent and telephone calls with him; and
• the Council’s responses to Mr X through its complaints procedure.
5. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered their comments before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X lives in a two storey mid-terrace house in a terrace of six properties. His home has an unusual layout. His upstairs bedrooms and bathroom are above one neighbour’s ground floor flat. His living room and kitchen are underneath two bedrooms which are part of the house to the other side of him.
7. Mr X bought his home in 2007 from the Council. The Council’s Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) managed the Council’s properties on either side. The neighbouring properties are now owned by a Housing Association. The Council does not own the neighbouring properties or have any management responsibilities for them. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of housing associations.

Mr X’s previous complaint to the Ombudsman

8. Mr X made a previous complaint about the Council’s failure to respond properly to his complaints of noise disturbance from the neighbouring properties. In
   June 2018 we found the Council at fault. When it first responded to Mr X’s noise complaint it had failed to follow up recommendations it made to its ALMO to assess the noise and to investigate the quality of the sound insulation. It had also failed to assess Mr X's home as early as it should have under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
9. When we investigated, the Council was in the process of resolving the noise problems through building works as a joint project between the Housing Association and the Council. The works were intended to convert Mr X’s property to a more traditional layout where he would have his own two bedrooms and bathroom above his own living room and kitchen. That meant Mr X would be in control of the use of the rooms over his living area. The works were also to include installing sound insulation over and above current Building Regulations requirements to reduce noise transfer between Mr X and both neighbours. The Council’s role was to agree the materials to be used, check work in progress and carry out sound testing on completion of the work. Council officers agreed to discuss the project with Mr X through its different stages.
10. The Council said the conversion work it and the Housing Association were planning would be more effective than any improvements to sound insulation it could have enforced under the HHSRS. Overall, we considered the conversion works being planned would remedy the injustice caused to Mr X by the faults we identified.

Events November 2017 – April 2019

11. In November 2017 Mr X, the Council and the Housing Association reached agreement to convert Mr X’s property.
12. The Council says it and the Housing Association referred in their discussions to returning Mr X’s property to its ‘original layout’. The Council says this terminology is based on the understanding that the two bedrooms originally associated with the ground floor of Mr X’s property would have been the bedrooms directly above.
13. In July and August 2018 Mr X contacted the Council to explain what he considered the original layout of his property to be. He considered the original terrace had four two storey houses in it, rather than the six properties currently in place. He said the plans produced so far did not show the original layout as he understood it to be.
14. In September 2018 Mr X told the Council he had found the Housing Association had been running water and flushing the toilet at one of the neighbouring empty properties. He said this caused water to penetrate his home, causing dampness in his living room floor. He said returning his property to its original layout would resolve all the problems including leaks, trespass, damage to his property and he would never need to deal with the Housing Association again. The Council replied that running the water was part of the Housing Association’s procedures for maintaining empty properties.
15. Between September and November 2018 the Housing Association put three conversion options to Mr X. They were all options that placed Mr X’s two bedrooms and bathroom over his own living room and kitchen and provided more sound insulation between the properties. The first two options involved a partial overhang still. The third option aimed to ensure there was no overhang at all. None of the options tried to replicate a layout that might have existed before Mr X bought his house and when the terrace had only four properties in it. In November 2018 Mr X accepted the third option.
16. After further discussions with Mr X about the third option, on 6 March 2019 the Housing Association confirmed to Mr X that its revision of the third option was the final plan it was prepared to consider. The Housing Association considered this plan would return Mr X’s bedrooms and bathroom, currently overhanging the neighbouring flat, to directly above the ground floor of Mr X’s home. It said the plan would mean Mr X would lose no discernible amount of his gross floor area. It said if Mr X did not agree with the proposal it would have no option but to end the conversion project and re-let the properties either side of Mr X. It asked Mr X to clarify his position by 29 March 2019. The Council confirmed that, if the Housing Association withdrew its offer to convert Mr X’s property, the Council would be unable to mediate further on this issue.
17. In March 2019 Mr X made a complaint to the Council about a number of issues. One of the issues was he considered the Council had not followed through the agreed proposal to reinstate his property. Another issue was he considered the final proposal would not address the issue of water leaking into the void under his house from one of the neighbouring properties.
18. The Council responded to Mr X on 27 March. It urged Mr X to accept the proposal of a traditional layout for his property at no cost to himself. It said the issue of the leak would be properly investigated and addressed during the conversion works.
19. Mr X did not agree the final plan by 29 March 2019. On 2 April 2019 the
    Housing Association wrote to Mr X. It said as Mr X would not accept the plans it had to re-let the properties on either side.
20. Mr X asked the Council to put his complaint to Stage 2 of its complaints procedure. The Council replied on 11 April. The elements of the reply relevant to Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman were:
• References to ‘the original layout’ made by the Council or by the Housing Association in the last year had been based on the understanding that the two bedrooms originally associated with the ground floor of his property would have been the bedrooms directly above, not those overhanging the neighbouring property.
• The Council considered the final option met the conditions to the scheme the Council had explained to the Ombudsman, which were:
1. A more traditional layout with no overhanging bedrooms or bathroom and
   Mr X’s bedrooms and bathroom above his living room and kitchen. His bathroom layout would be changed but the existing fittings would have been used.
2. No changes to Mr X’s living room and kitchen.
3. Extra sound insulation between his property and the properties on either side.
21. The Council also repeated it would have ensured the issue of the leak was addressed during the conversion works. The conversion would have exposed existing drainage and the new drainage would have been agreed by the Council’s Building Control section. The Council offered to look into the leak at the neighbouring property.
22. The Council said it would work with Mr X and the Housing Association to ensure in future any potential Category 1 hazard under the HHSRS was avoided. It said the Council would inspect the Housing Association’s pre-letting works once complete and before re-letting. It also said the Housing Association had agreed to an alternative option suggested by the Council, of not letting the rooms above
    Mr X’s living room and kitchen as part of either neighbouring property. The Council considered this was likely to prevent the occurrence of a Category 1 noise hazard under the HHSRS.
23. At the end of April 2019, a senior Council officer reviewed the way the Council had dealt with Mr X’s complaints. The officer concluded the complaints had been dealt with properly. The officer said Mr X had been offered a unique, one off opportunity to return his home to a more traditional layout at no cost to himself and had failed to take up the offer. The officer said, if remedial works were not undertaken and the bedrooms above Mr X’s living area were not occupied, the Council’s Building Control section would not need to be involved.
24. Shortly after the complaint review a Council officer carried out a dye test on water flushed from the toilet in one of the neighbouring properties. The officer confirmed he saw dyed water entering the void under Mr X’s living room.
25. The Housing Association then carried out alterations at the neighbouring property and said these will have addressed the leak. Initially Mr X agreed the works had stopped the leak. The Council offered to carry out another dye test to see if the leak had been resolved. Mr X said there was no need to check on the drains as the alteration works had stopped the leak. The Council closed its case on the leak.
26. Mr X then asked the Council to investigate the issue of the waste water still underneath his floor as a result of past leaks. He later also raised concerns that the alterations next door had not, in fact, stopped the leak. In mid-August 2019 the Council said it would no longer investigate this issue and suggested Mr X get someone else to do so. The Council has confirmed it will respond to any new service requests from Mr X on new issues.

Mr X’s reasons for not agreeing to the conversion plans

27. Mr X says he had always agreed for works to go ahead as soon as possible provided the plans depicted the core elements of the Ombudsman’s final decision.
28. At different times Mr X said he could not agree the plans offered because:
• they did not revert to what he considered was the original layout and footprint of his property;
• they were not clear enough and were deceptive;
• he never got enough details of materials, time scales and which contractors would be used;
• he required a risk assessment and a method statement which were never provided;
• he disagreed that the plans would produce the result he wanted regarding noise transfer. He said the entire floor/ceiling needed to be removed and the current beams replaced with steel running in the opposite direction and this was never offered;
• he refused to have any works carried out on the party walls and the ceiling of his property because of the health issues that would cause him; and
• the final option would not allow repair of the leak from the neighbouring property.

Findings

29. In our previous investigation we found the Council was at fault because of failures to respond properly to Mr X’s noise complaints. When we started our investigation the Council had already agreed to work with Mr X and the Housing Association to convert Mr X’s property to try to resolve noise transfer problems in the long term. The Council was under no duty to embark upon the conversion project and we did not recommend this way ahead as a remedy for the fault we identified. However, as the project was under way, we considered the project would remedy any injustice caused to Mr X by the fault we identified.
30. The project ended in March 2019, 15 months after the Council, the Housing Association and Mr X agreed to go forward with it, and before any plans were agreed or any conversion work took place. I am satisfied the Council was not at fault in the way it carried out its role in the project.
31. The Council facilitated discussion of the project for as long as it could. The Housing Association offered Mr X one last chance to accept a conversion proposal. The last plans put to Mr X for agreement showed no changes to Mr X’s living room and kitchen and two bedrooms and a bathroom immediately above his ground floor. It also involved extra sound insulation between the different properties. It was never the Ombudsman’s job to agree details of the project. We expected the project to address noise issues by putting Mr X in control over what happened in the rooms above his living area and by increasing sound insulation between the properties. In broad terms the last plan offered to Mr X achieved this.
32. The Council considered the final plan on offer would reduce the potential for noise problems in future, at no cost to Mr X, and encouraged Mr X to accept it. It agreed to investigate and address the issue of a leak from one of the neighbouring properties during the conversion works. Mr X felt he could not agree to what was on offer but that is not fault by the Council.
33. The Council investigated the leak from the neighbouring property. The Council closed its case when Mr X said there was no need for further investigation. The Council also had information that the cause of the leak had been addressed. In these circumstances I do not find the Council at fault in closing its case. It is open to Mr X, as a home owner, to pursue any repair/maintenance issues which involve the properties either side of him using his own contractors, liaising with the Housing Association as necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have now completed my investigation as I have found no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman