Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to properly investigate and enforce against disrepair and noise nuisances inside her home. She also complains about how the Council has communicated with her. We have found the Council at fault for not conducting a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) inspection at the earliest opportunity. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice we believe this caused Ms X. We have not found the Council at fault for how it investigated Ms X’s noise nuisance concerns, or for how it communicated with Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has:
1. failed to properly investigate and enforce against disrepair issues inside her home;
2. failed to properly investigate and enforce against reported noise nuisance; and
3. failed to communicate effectively with her about her concerns over an extended period.
2. Ms X says this has caused frustration, distress, and negatively affected her physical and mental wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Ms X provided and discussed the complaint with her.
6. I considered the Council’s responses to my enquiries.
7. Both Ms X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Statutory nuisances

8. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
9. Typical things which may be a statutory nuisance include:
• noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.
• smoke from premises.
• smells from industry, trade or business premises.
• artificial light from premises.
• insect infestations from industrial, trade or business premises.
10. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and / or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
11. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an environmental health officer, or EHO) to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
12. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.

Abatement notices

13. If the council is satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, it must serve an abatement notice. If the nuisance is noise from premises, the council may delay service of an abatement notice for a short period, to attempt to address the problem informally.
14. An abatement notice requires the person or people responsible to stop or limit the activity causing the nuisance. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence, which can lead to prosecution and a fine.

Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS)

15. Councils have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (introduced by the Housing Act 2004, Part 1) to take enforcement action against landlords where the council has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk. When a council has reason to believe there is serious risk to the health and safety of an occupier it must inspect the property.
16. The HHSRS is a tool used to help councils identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety.
17. If the assessment finds a category one hazard, councils have a duty to serve a notice to the landlord to address the hazard. If the assessment finds a category two hazard, councils have discretion about whether to take formal action.

Back to top

What I found

Background

18. Ms X approached the Ombudsman in January 2021 to complain about how the Council had carried out a review of her housing priority. In that complaint, Ms X also said the Council had failed to properly investigate and enforce against environmental health concerns in her home, relating to the condition of the property and recurring noise nuisance. The Ombudsman decided we could not investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint at the time, as the Council had not yet responded to this as a formal complaint.
19. Ms X returned to the Ombudsman in late 2022 and said the Council had not addressed these concerns. The Ombudsman opted to investigate this as a separate complaint, exercising discretion to consider the Council’s actions from January 2020 onwards. I have not investigated any matters before this date, although some are referenced for context.

Key events

20. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the analysis section of this decision statement.
21. Ms X lives in a property managed by a housing association, referred to in this statement as Landlord B. Ms X says she has long-standing disrepair and noise nuisance issues in her home. These issues have negatively impacted Ms X’s physical and mental wellbeing over an extended period. Ms X provided evidence to the Ombudsman showing the Council had taken intermittent action to address reports of noise nuisance and property disrepair between 2009 and 2014. Evidence Ms X provided suggests she has been in a legal dispute with Landlord B for many years, up until around 2018.

2020 and 2021

22. In August 2021, Ms X wrote to the Council. I have not seen evidence of contact to the Council before this date during the period covered by this investigation. She said there were leaks affecting the property and this had been the case for several years. Ms X said the Council had not addressed this.
23. In September 2021, the Council wrote to Ms X about the concerns raised. The Council sought a convenient time to carry out an inspection of the property and conduct an HHSRS assessment. The Council told Ms X it would need to provide reasonable notice to Landlord B of its intent to inspect the property. The Council said Ms X should report any further leaks to Landlord B.
24. The Council's records show Ms X asked to arrange a phone call for the following week, ahead of confirming a visit. The Council's notes show it contacted Ms X by phone as agreed. The records show:
1. Ms X did not want the Council to inspect then, as she had personal matters to attend to first.
2. Ms X told the Council Landlord B had sought an injunction to move her from the property, so it could complete the works needed. The notes state Ms X told the Council that Landlord B had offered her other properties, including on her street, but these had not been suitable for her because of existing medical conditions.
3. Ms X and Landlord B had agreed that works needed completing, but there was no agreement on where Ms X should live while work took place. This was the reason for the injunction.
4. Ms X understood an HHSRS assessment may not be helpful in addressing this disagreement, but would contact the Council to arrange an inspection when she was available.
25. In October 2021, the Council's notes show it carried out an internal review of Ms X’s case. The notes state that it had received no further complaints. The Council decided to take no further action.
26. Ms X emailed the Council again in November 2021. She said the Council had continuously failed to address long-standing problems inside her home. She set out the harmful impact the property was having on her wellbeing. Ms X and the Council exchanged correspondence about arranging an inspection, but I have seen no evidence this took place at the time.

March 2022

27. Following further contact from Ms X in which she set out concerns about leaks and noise inside the property, the Council inspected Ms X’s home. The Council witnessed noise from the water pipework in Ms X’s building. It decided this noise amounted to a statutory nuisance.
28. The Council served Landlord B with an abatement notice. It said the noise was a repeated, daily occurrence, interfering with Ms X’s occupation of the property and keeping her awake throughout the night. The abatement notice gave Landlord B 21 days to stop the noise and prevent it from happening again. The penalty for non-compliance was potential prosecution leading to an unlimited fine, or a fixed-penalty notice (FPN).
29. At the end of March 2022, Ms X contacted the Council to report further noise disturbances, caused by Landlord B’s repair work. The Council’s notes show it told Ms X it could not act to address noise relating to a notice it had issued, without frustrating its own notice.
30. The Council said it would contact Landlord B to understand the scope of the work being completed, as well as a timescale for completion. Ms X continued to report noise disturbances from both the repair work and from the water pipework.
31. The Council contacted Landlord B and noted the following:
1. Landlord B had carried out refurbishment work involving the water supply to the properties above Ms X.
2. Landlord B had offered Ms X alternative accommodation in January 2022, but Ms X had not accepted this.
3. The renovation work would take around three weeks to complete.
32. Ms X told the Council the alternative accommodation offered was not suitable for her medical needs. She also said the noise from the pipe work remained, because Landlord B’s contractors were turning the water on to carry out renovation works. The Council told Landlord B it should not assume it had resolved the noise from the pipework while the water was switched off.
33. The Council inspected Ms X’s home in response to reports water had entered the property from above, where Landlord B's renovation works were taking place. Ms X told the Council that Landlord B’s contractors had said a burst pipe caused the leak, but they had now turned off the water. The Council's records state the leak had stopped, but that watermarks were clearly visible. It said Ms X had covered many of her belongings to prevent water damage.

April 2022

34. The Council met with Landlord B to discuss Ms X’s concerns. The Council proposed visiting Ms X with Landlord B and sought to facilitate this.
35. After this meeting, Ms X told the Council that both noise and leaks persisted in her home. She said she was having to sleep in a wet room while dealing with health issues. The Council's internal records show officers sought permission to issue a housing improvement notice to Landlord B. This was because it had been aware of the leak for a week, but had not acted to address it.
36. The Council wrote to Landlord B, advising that if Landlord B did not immediately address the leak, the Council would attend the property and serve an abatement notice. The Council also asked Landlord B to consider moving Ms X to alternative accommodation, as her bedroom was not habitable. Landlord B told the Council it would prioritise its response and reply the following day.
37. The Council told Landlord B it would not carry out a further inspection, or take enforcement action, on the understanding Landlord B would urgently resolve these issues. From this point forward, the Council routinely acted as a point of contact between Landlord B and Ms X.
38. Internal correspondence from this time shows the Council decided an officer from the noise and nuisance service would manage Ms X’s concerns, rather than its environmental health service. The records suggest the Council took this decision to ensure a coherent response, as multiple officers and services had been contacted about the issues in Ms X’s home.

May 2022

39. The Council met with Landlord B to discuss the case. Records suggest that Landlord B had not completed the refurbishment works needed to address the leak, as some of the repairs were taking longer than expected. The Council recorded that Landlord B had resolved the noise caused by the water hammer, and that noise from the building work was no longer an issue. Because of this, the Council told Landlord B it would minimise its role. The Council encouraged Landlord B to engage with Ms X directly.
40. On the 12 May 2022, Ms X told the Council and Landlord B that refurbishment works had gone on for more than three weeks. She said she had received no notice for the work, and was affected by the noise and dust caused by the works. Ms X said the schedule was inconsistent and asked that Landlord B carried out no work outside of standard construction hours.
41. On the 22 May 2022, Ms X wrote to the Council and Landlord B again. She set out how the condition of her home was preventing her from following medical procedures. Ms X then sent further correspondence, highlighting the continued noise inside her home from the water pipes. Internal records show the Council regarded Ms X’s correspondence as being for its information only, needing no intervention at that point, because Landlord B was still carrying out repairs.

June 2022

42. The Council received notice that Landlord B had completed soundproofing works. The Council wrote to Ms X to say it wanted to inspect to check if the works were effective. The Council's records suggest it received no response from Ms X.

August 2022

43. Ms X left a message with the Council, asking for a copy of the abatement notice served on Landlord B. The Council sent Ms X a copy of this notice and asked her to get in touch.
44. On the same day, Ms X contacted the Council by phone. The Council's record of the call shows:
1. Ms X told the Council she had been unwell and had not been in contact with either the Council or Landlord B as a result.
2. Ms X said she was still suffering from damp, mould, disrepair, and noise issues inside the property.
3. The Council told Ms X it was responsible for the noise complaint, but not the repair issues. It said it would forward details of these concerns to housing services. The Council said it understood Landlord B had completed the soundproofing work to a high standard, following a visit to the property above. It said it would need to visit Ms X at home to understand the scope of the problem she was experiencing.
4. Ms X told the Council she would arrange a visit when she felt well enough to do so. She also told the Council the alternative accommodation Landlord B had offered was unsatisfactory. The Council said it would pass this on to Landlord B, which it did following the call.

September 2022

45. In internal file notes, the Council recorded that due to Ms X’s ill health, it was unreasonable and intrusive to continue viewing the property. An internal e-mail said Landlord B had completed works to the property above Ms X, but noted the current situation was unclear. The Council decided to open a private sector housing enforcement case to review whether it needed to act regarding the condition of Ms X’s home.
46. The Council wrote to Ms X, explaining it would need to visit Ms X to properly assess whether Landlord B’s repairs had been effective. It noted Ms X had not been able to allow a visit recently and asked her to confirm when she was available.
47. The Council wrote to Landlord B to arrange a meeting to discuss its private housing enforcement case. It asked Landlord B to comment on the repairs issues and confirm where matters stood. The Council later noted that access continued to be an issue and Landlord B was trying to complete some of the outstanding works.

October 2022

48. In October 2022, the Council met with Landlord B to discuss the case. The Council recorded that:
• Landlord B had addressed the water leak from the property above.
• The noise complaints were referenced, but the notes contain no detail about actions taken.
• Landlord B had not been able to access Ms X’s property to investigate further.
• Ms X had declined alternative accommodation offered by Landlord B. The Council recorded that Landlord B could not complete the repairs without further access.
49. The day after this meeting, the Council recorded that Landlord B had agreed access for an inspection with the Council and one of its surveyors.

November 2022

50. On 17 November 2022, Ms X wrote to the Council to say she would be in contact the following week to arrange this inspection. Ms X told the Council the situation had not changed. I have not seen evidence this proposed inspection took place.

December 2022

51. On 9 December 2022, the Council wrote to Landlord B, seeking an update on the case. The Council asked Landlord B if they had met with Ms X and what the outcome was.
52. An internal file note added to the Council's records on 13 December 2022 shows it planned to hold a review of the case.

March 2023

53. In March 2023, the Council’s records show different services discussed the case internally to decide whether the Council should take further action. This appears to have followed a period of no contact from the other parties involved.
54. On 17 March 2023, the Council wrote to Landlord B. It said there had been multiple visits and interventions from its environmental health, noise and nuisance, and private sector housing services. Despite this, it still had concerns about Ms X’s wellbeing and safety inside the property. It said it understood that Ms X would likely need to stay elsewhere for Landlord B to complete repairs. The Council asked Landlord B to provide details about the actions it would take to address this, as well as a timescale. I have seen no evidence the Council received a reply.

April 2023

55. On 21 April 2023, the Council wrote to Ms X, inquiring whether she still needed support regarding disrepair in her home. The Council said it understood Landlord B had been in contact with Ms X about this and had been acting to address concerns. The Council said Ms X should get in touch to arrange an inspection if this was not the case. It asked Ms X to respond within 10 days, saying it would otherwise close the case.

May 2023

56. Ms X contacted the Council, confirming she had received the letter. She said she could not respond within 10 days, but said she still needed help. Ms X said she had been affected by a leak within the last week. In a further message, Ms X said the Council's recent letter had caused distress.
57. The Council wrote to Ms X. It apologised for any distress caused by its letter. It said it would need to visit the property to inspect any disrepair concerns, to move the case forward. It offered an appointment date and said it could also arrange for Landlord B to be present.
58. At the end of May 2023, Ms X replied to the Council. She said she would not be available for the proposed inspection. She asked whether a telephone call could take place before any visit, as she wished to discuss and clarify her concerns. Ms X told the Council the noise from the pipe work persisted and she was still suffering from leaks. She said visits were not possible currently, as she needed to attend medical appointments. She said this would be the case until mid-June 2023.

June 2023

59. On 7 June 2023, the Council replied to Ms X. It provided up-to-date contact details for its environmental health team. It said Ms X should contact the team when she felt able to provide access for an inspection.

Analysis

Complaint the Council failed to investigate and enforce against disrepair

60. The Council’s role is limited to assessing Ms X’s property for hazards and identifying whether any required formal action, as set out in paragraphs 15 to 17. Landlord B is responsible for managing Ms X’s property.
61. I have not found the Council at fault for its handling of Ms X’s concerns between August 2021 and March 2022. The evidence suggests the Council reacted properly to Ms X’s reports, responding to the correspondence it received and offering inspections in a timely manner.
62. The Council first inspected Ms X’s home in March 2022. The Council’s focus was on the noise nuisance caused by the water pipework. It made no observations about the condition of the property on its first inspection. It did not carry out an HHSRS inspection, as it had proposed it would in earlier correspondence.
63. In a follow-up inspection, also in March 2022, the Council noted the poor condition of Ms X’s property, as well as evidence of water staining. In April 2022, following further reports from Ms X of leaks and damp, the Council told Landlord B it would issue an improvement notice unless it resolved the leak. It also asked Landlord B to consider moving Ms X to alternative accommodation, suggesting it had concerns about the property condition generally.
64. However, I have seen no evidence that it carried out an HHSRS assessment during these further visits to the property, as it had proposed it would. I therefore understand the Council did not assess or categorise any other potential hazards inside the property, setting out the possible risks to Ms X were she to remain resident once the leak was resolved.
65. I have found the Council at fault for not carrying out an HHSRS assessment of the defects in Ms X’s property at the earliest opportunity.
66. I believe this caused Ms X an injustice. I cannot say now what the Council would have found, had it properly assessed Ms X’s property at the time. However, on a balance of probabilities, I believe doing so may have minimised repetitious actions, by reducing the need for more inspections. I believe the Council would be more certain now about the actions Landlord B should have taken throughout. This would have allowed the Council to keep clear oversight of Landlord B’s efforts to resolve defects inside the home. There would also already be a clear framework to take enforcement action, if necessary, having already formally identified the hazards and risks in the property.
67. As set out in paragraph 38, the Council then decided to manage all of Ms X’s concerns through its noise and nuisance service, rather than open a parallel housing enforcement case. This was to ensure a consistent response. The Council then sought to reduce its overall involvement, as set out in paragraph 39.
68. The Council’s rationale for managing contact in this way was to ensure a consistent response. However, this approach appears to have led to the Council losing oversight of Landlord B’s efforts to address disrepair issues inside the property, prompting it to open a housing enforcement investigation in September 2022.
69. That the Council has not been able to inspect the property since September 2022 appears beyond its control, as agreeing access to the property has been difficult. This is partly owing to Ms X being unavailable for periods of time, due to her medical conditions. The evidence suggests Ms X has also been occasionally reluctant to provide access to Landlord B and the Council, because of frustration that further visits were not resolving the problem. More recently, it seems the Council has been frustrated by a lack of consistent responses from Landlord B, and so the matter has drifted.
70. Early, decisive intervention therefore appears to have been crucial in this case, given that a large part of Ms X’s complaint is about actions being repeated without any resolution being found. Had it conducted its HHSRS assessment early on, I believe the Council could have reduced avoidable frustration and inconvenience for Ms X. However, I cannot say with certainty that the conditions in Ms X’s home would be improved now, as this would also be dependent on interactions between Ms X and Landlord B.

Complaint the Council failed to properly investigate and enforce against noise nuisance

71. The Council responded appropriately to Ms X’s reports of noise nuisance, carrying out an inspection in March 2022, the earliest date it could gain access to the property. It decided the noise it witnessed amounted to a statutory nuisance and served Landlord B with an abatement notice, setting out its rationale for doing so.
72. After it served the notice, the Council met with Landlord B and sought clarification on the steps it would take to address this issue. It allowed Landlord B time to carry out the necessary repairs and sought regular updates, while also providing technical guidance to mitigate potential problems.
73. The Council received confirmation from Landlord B that it had completed soundproofing work in June 2022. It sought to arrange an inspection to check the work immediately after. In August 2022, the Council's notes show that Ms X told the Council she could not allow a visit at that point, for medical reasons. The notes state Ms X would arrange a visit when she felt well enough to do so. As far as I understand, the Council has not been able to access the property to assess the effectiveness of the work, but remains prepared to do so.
74. The evidence available therefore shows the Council inspected Ms X’s concerns, made an evidence-based decision, and served an appropriate notice. The evidence also shows the Council engaged properly with Landlord B to ensure work began and sought updates on progress. The Council remains prepared to assess whether the works have been successful. As a result, I have not found the Council at fault for how it handled Ms X’s reports of noise nuisance.
75. The evidence suggests the Council satisfied itself Landlord B was acting to address the noise issues, and that formal enforcement for a breach of the notice was not necessary. The Council retains professional discretion over whether to pursue enforcement of the abatement notice, once served.

Complaint the Council failed to communicate effectively about concerns over an extended period

76. I have set out a summary of the Council's communications with Ms X elsewhere in this statement. Based on the evidence available, I believe the Council communicated effectively with Ms X when responding to the correspondence and messages it received. It explained what actions it would take, returned messages and correspondence received, and effectively relayed Ms X’s concerns to Landlord B. There are instances of gaps in communication; however, it appears the Council was awaiting further responses from either Ms X or Landlord B on these occasions. When it received further contact, it responded proactively.
77. It also facilitated contact between Ms X and Landlord B, and encouraged direct communication as a means to resolve long-standing issues.
78. I have not found the Council at fault for how it communicated with Ms X.

Back to top

Agreed action

79. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Ms X for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document.
2. Remind officers of the inspection procedure set out in the housing health and safety rating system operating guidance, and the need to ensure that defects and hazards are recorded in detail as a means to justify decision making and potential enforcement action.
3. Pending agreement for access from Ms X, conduct an inspection of Ms X’s home, against the HHSRS framework. The Council should clearly list any defects and categorise any hazards it observes. It should share a copy of its report with Ms X and Landlord B. It should also provide a copy of its report to the Ombudsman.
80. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

81. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault, causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman