From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Colchester City Council (202329692)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329692

Colchester City Council

10 July 2025


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 concerns regarding the impact of building work next to his property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He moved into the property in October 2021 following a mutual exchange. The landlord is a local council. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, during the complaints process the resident disclosed some health conditions to the landlord.
  2. For context, in December 2020 the landlord was granted planning permission to demolish the building opposite the resident’s property and build a new housing block. It is unclear when the building work commenced based on the evidence we have seen.
  3. Between January 2023 and September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions regarding the building work. He said the disruption had a significant detrimental impact on him and his family.
  4. On 8 November 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said: the development had “affected the quality of everyday life” and that his mental health had been “derailed”. He also raised concerns regarding the safety of the site. He provided the following examples:
    1. An “unsafe” forklift driver moving materials without adhering to health and safety regulations.
    2. Builders blocking roads and footpaths and lorries parked on the grass outside his property.
    3. Nowhere to park.
    4. 1 month of missed post and bin collections due to services being unable to access the site.
    5. Constant noise.
    6. His privacy had been compromised due to the location of the balconies at the new development.
    7. His children were unable to access the garden due to the proximity of the building work.
  5. On 23 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
    1. Builders had to block the road from “time to time” and contractors had provided alternative pedestrian access and vehicle access was “available when required”.
    2. A newsletter was distributed on 14 November 2023.
    3. A request had been made to the contractors to ensure access was made for refuse collections.
    4. The contractors had been asked to liaise with postal services to ensure deliveries were not affected.
    5. “A construction project adjacent to properties is never ideal” however “there are other areas available for children to play safely”.
    6. Damage to the site, such as cracks to walkways, would be addressed and repaired once the project has completed.
    7. The design of the new building was considered during planning.
  6. On the same day, 23 November 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. He said:
    1. The landlord had disregarded the impact on his mental health.
    2. He had never been told about the building works when he moved into the property.
    3. The landlord’s response lacked empathy, particularly with regards to the comment about children playing elsewhere.
    4. The garden had not been safe to use during the summer because it was not secure. This was because the fence had been damaged by contractors, and the garden was next to the materials storage area.
    5. The missed letters meant he had missed health appointments for his newborn baby.
    6. It was not appropriate to be told about a road closure the day before.
    7. The forklift driver did not operate the machinery safely.
    8. The builders used the car parking area which was meant for residents.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 December 2023. It:
    1. Apologised if the resident felt unsafe in his garden. It said it had instructed the contractors to demolish the resident’s damaged wall and put up temporary fencing between the storage yard and the resident’s garden.
    2. Confirmed a new fence would be installed at the end of the project.
    3. Said it had spoken to the contractors regarding parking.
    4. Stated it had requested “better signage” to ensure delivery drivers, and the post services were aware the resident’s property could be accessed.
    5. Said the “unsafe forklift driver” had been “removed from site” and the new driver was “competent and safe”.
    6. Acknowledged living next to a building site was “difficult” and said it was trying to minimise the effect on residents.
    7. Said it had requested the contractor provide more notice when the road was closed.
    8. Confirmed if the refuse lorry could not collect the rubbish, then the contractor would dispose of it.
    9. Awarded £250 compensation for the inconvenience and offered to re-turf the garden at the end of the project which it expected to be May 2024.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service. His desired outcome was additional compensation from the landlord and an apology.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. On 31 October 2024, the landlord contacted the residents of all properties affected by the building works. It apologised for the delay in completing the project. It offered to landscape the resident’s gardens and awarded £1000 compensation to each neighbouring household in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the additional delays.
  2. The landlord also offered to re-turf the residents garden. The landlord awarded the resident £750 in his letter due to the fact he had already received £250 compensation at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
  3. It is not clear, from the evidence we have seen the exact date the building work was completed. However, both parties have confirmed the building work has finished and the garden work has been done.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has told us his health and wellbeing has been impacted by the building work next to his property. We acknowledge this has been a difficult time for him and his family. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim to the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as well as the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s health concerns.
  2. The resident has informed us there have been further issues in resolving other matters relating to the garden. These included issues that were identified after the events of the formal complaint. This investigation can only consider matters which the landlord has had the opportunity to investigate through its own internal complaints procedure which concluded in December 2023. This is in line with Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which is made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. The resident can make a separate complaint to the landlord about the issues if he wants to. However, we recommend the landlord contacts the resident regarding the other issues and responds to his concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the building works

  1. We find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the building work next to the resident’s property. The reasons for our findings are below.
  2. The resident said he was unaware of the plans to demolish and re-build the building opposite when he moved into the property in October 2021. Although the landlord was not under a legal obligation to provide this information, it should have recognised the resident had moved in after it had communicated with the residents affected by the building works. In September 2021 the landlord sent letters to residents regarding the planning application and works which would be taking place. The resident moved in the following month and therefore never received these. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have recognised this situation and communicated with the resident during this period.
  3. The resident first raised his concerns regarding the impact of the building work to the landlord in January 2023. He stated that there were difficulties parking on the site. He requested a housing officer visit to assess the situation. In his email he also raised concerns regarding overcrowding at his property. The landlord responded to his email and provided guidance and links to apply for a larger property. While it was appropriate for the landlord to send this information, it also should have addressed the resident’s other concerns and request for a visit. There was no evidence to suggest the landlord responded to the resident regarding these issues. This lack of communication was a failing which would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  4. Throughout July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord on 5 occasions to report intermittent hot water, heating and loss of electrics. He explained he had 2 children and a newborn baby at home. While we acknowledge the loss of these services is not within the direct control of the landlord there was no evidence to show how it responded to these concerns or supported the resident during this time. This was a failing which may have caused the resident to feel the landlord was not listening to him or taking his concerns seriously.
  5. On 20 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord again. He said he was concerned as he had been made aware his road would be closed from 24 July 2023 for 3 weeks. He stated this would have a significant impact on his ability to access his house and use his garden. He said the dust and debris had meant he was “unable to open his windows”. He “strongly implored” the landlord to “temporarily rehome” him and his family during the “highly stressful situation”. The landlord provided no evidence it responded to this email.
  6. We have not seen enough evidence to know whether the property was uninhabitable. Therefore, we cannot say that the landlord should have moved the resident. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. Our Spotlight Report on Attitudes, Rights and Respect refers to the importance of landlord’s taking resident’s individual circumstances into account. The resident had 2 children and a newborn baby. He has also disclosed to the landlord some health vulnerabilities. There was no evidence the landlord considered these. Furthermore, the landlord provided no evidence it visited the resident, or a risk assessment of the property or the resident’s circumstances was considered or took place. The landlord was unsympathetic to the resident’s circumstances. This was a failing which had a detrimental impact on the resident.
  7. We have seen some newsletters which the contractor sent to residents during the project to update them on the building works. However, the newsletters appeared to be irregular and were often vague with regards to dates for disruption, such as road closures. Furthermore, the newsletters were from the contractor. The landlord had a responsibility to communicate directly with its residents and there was no evidence it did this. The lack of communication and over-reliance on the contractor to provide updates was a failing. We recommend the landlord considers how it manages communication between itself, contractors and residents on future projects to avoid similar communication issues in future.
  8. The landlord’s comment “children can play elsewhere” in response to the resident’s concerns about the safety of his garden was not reasonable. The landlord failed to demonstrate sympathy or an understanding of the resident’s circumstances. While the stage 2 response on 18 December 2023 provided some confirmation regarding fencing in the garden, the response continued to lack empathy for the resident’s situation. The landlord missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident during the complaints process and this was a failing which would have damaged the landlord tenant relationship.
  9. During the complaints process the resident raised concerns regarding the position of the balconies on the new building. He stated this was impacting his privacy. The landlord was reasonable when it told him the designs had been through the appropriate planning processes. However, it would have been appropriate for it to signpost him to the planning department at the local council for further information.
  10. The landlord provided some internal communication from May 2024. This stated the resident had expressed frustration regarding the lack of communication. It said the resident had provided feedback that a “tenants meeting” and some “formal communication” would have been appreciated throughout the project. The landlord commented this was a “fair” point. It was positive the landlord reflected on the lack of communication, but it should have gone further to investigate what steps it could take to improve communication in the future.
  11. The landlord’s remedies policy does not specify specific amounts. However, it does say it will consider financial remedy if the landlord’s service failure has impacted on the resident’s use and enjoyment of their property. It also states it may offer a goodwill gesture if it has “made an error or provided an unsatisfactory service”.
  12. The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s offer of compensation for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble encountered by the resident was appropriate. In doing so, we refer to our Remedies Guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation.
  13. The landlord identified the resident had experienced delays and inconvenience during the building work and ultimately offered substantial redress for this. However, the majority of the compensation was only offered to the resident in October 2024, 10 months after the end of the complaints process. It is the Ombudsman’s role to consider the landlord’s handling of complaints through its internal complaints process and, in assessing this, we consider the reasonableness of any offers made during the complaints process. Where a landlord makes a reasonable offer of compensation after the end of its complaints process, we may make a finding of service failure or maladministration by the landlord as the offer should have been made during the complaints process.
  14. Therefore, we do not consider that the £250 awarded to the resident at the end of the complaints process was an appropriate or fair amount at the time it was offered. It did not proportionately reflect the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident up until the end of the complaints process. The resident and his family endured daily inconveniences to their everyday life over a long time. These included issues such as accessing their property, obtaining their post, having their bins collected and using their garden. These issues were heightened due to the resident having a newborn baby. While aspects of this were an unavoidable part of living in close proximity to building works, the landlord’s lack of communication and empathy for the resident’s circumstances were failings which exacerbated the situation.
  15. The landlord awarded £1000 to the resident and neighbouring residents affected by the building work at the end of the project. This figure is in line with our Remedies Guidance and adequately reflects the inconveniences endured by the resident. However, it should have been offered sooner, and it is for this reason it cannot be considered reasonable redress.
  16. The Ombudsman has noted the landlord reduced the resident’s compensation figure from £1000 to £750 because it had already awarded £250 to him during the complaints process. This was not a fair or reasonable deduction. The £250 awarded was specific to the resident’s circumstance and his individual complaint. The resident had endured additional inconvenience, time and trouble due to his complaint and failings in the landlord’s responses to his concerns. Therefore, the award of £250 should have been treated separately to the £1000 given to all affected residents. We will order the landlord to pay a total of £1250 to the resident. This includes any payments which have already been made, which can be deducted from the total.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents’ concerns regarding the building work next to his property.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available to view on our website.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1250 compensation. This is inclusive of any amounts already paid and is broken down as follows:
      1. £250 previously awarded at the end of the complaints process.
      2. £1000 in recognition of the delays and inconvenience.

 

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord review its staff’s training needs to ensure its staff:
    1. Understand how to respond to residents in a sympathetic manner considering their individual circumstances.
    2. Manage communication effectively between itself, residents and contractors, particularly during large projects affecting multiple residents.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident to determine if any issues are outstanding following completion of the building works.