Lambeth Council (202314594)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314594

Lambeth Council

20 December 2024

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of excessive heat in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fluctuations in the water pressure.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from an upstairs flat.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy agreement, which was granted via a deed of assignment on 20 March 2020 by the landlord, which is a council. The property is a 1-bedroom, ground floor flat. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the housing records, although she did tell the landlord she was disabled, had degenerative disc disease and was unable to regulate her body temperature.
The resident told the landlord in June 2021 that the property was too hot and she experienced noise from outside. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 23 June 2021 and confirmed the room temperature and noise levels in the property were ‘‘normal.’’ The resident told the landlord on 6 September 2021 that the temperature reached 24 degrees celsius and the heat was affecting her health.
The resident told the landlord on 10 January 2022 that she could not turn off the heating. She made a complaint on 2 February 2022. She said the property was too hot and she experienced problems with noise from the main road and local pubs. She also said she was unable to open the windows because of the noise and noted the 2 extractor fans fitted by the landlord to reduce the heat affected her sleep. In addition, the resident said the water pressure in her home was too high because there was no stopcock.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 June 2022 and said it had arranged an appointment to check the stopcock on 16 June 2022. The resident’s complaint was upheld.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 15 April 2023. She said the heating and hot water could not be regulated and she was unable to physically open the bathroom or kitchen windows as she could not reach them. She also said she could not regulate her body temperature due to spinal injuries and as a result, suffered heat exhaustion. In addition, the resident noted the noise from outside and the extractor fans was unbearable and there were still issues with the water pressure. She asked the landlord to check if there was a leak in the upstairs flat.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 20 June 2023 and said:
1. No issues were identified with the boiler following a visit by its contractor on 20 March 2023
2. It arranged for the boiler manufacturer to visit the resident’s home on 28 March 2023. This established the water was very hot, but the system was working as it should and no further assistance could be offered
3. There was no working stopcock in the property and this appeared to be the crux of the problem. The solution suggested by the water company would not work and the resident needed to contact her water supplier to arrange a joint visit with the landlord
4. The upstairs flat was a leasehold property and it was unable to investigate the resident’s claim of a possible leak
5. The resident should report issues of noise nuisance to its noise nuisance team
6. It discussed the resident’s concerns regarding the windows with her
The resident told this Service the issue with the heating had not been resolved and she was still unable to open 2 of the windows due to mobility issues. She also said she continued to experience noise nuisance and noted the stopcock was jammed, resulting in fluctuating water pressure.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In considering the landlord’s response to the issues reported by the resident it is noted that she has referred to a possible impact upon her health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that this Service is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a resident’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of excessive heat in the property.

This Service is unable to determine if there was a fault with the heating system or whether the property was too hot. The assessment has focused on establishing whether the landlord’s response was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord is responsible for ensuring the property was free from potential category 1 hazards in accordance with its obligations under the Health, Housing and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the homes and communities agency’s regulatory standards. Excess heat is identified as a potential hazard under the HHSRS.
Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Whilst reasonable timescales are not defined in law, the potential health risks of excess heat are significant and can lead to dehydration, trauma, increased risk of stroke, cardiovascular and respiratory difficulties.
While individual preferences regarding temperatures are subjective and it is difficult for a landlord to ensure all resident’s preferences are met, they are responsible for ensuring risks are monitored and managed.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for fittings that supply heating. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete repairs within the following target response times:
1. Emergency works are completed within 24 hours. This includes repairs that could cause serious health and safety problems or severe damage if not fixed or made safe
2. Routine repairs are completed within 28 days
3. Planned repairs are completed within 90 days
The landlord offers an enhanced repairs service to residents who are vulnerable and need additional support. Residents who have a physical disability are defined as vulnerable under the landlord’s vulnerable tenants’ policy. The landlord says it will take steps to proactively identify vulnerable residents, including completing assessments to determine if they are eligible for its enhanced service offer.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer redress for service failures which include unjustified delays and failures to follow policies. Redress options include offering an apology and compensation where there has been an adverse impact on the resident.
The housing records confirm the resident reported issues with excess heat to the landlord on 6 September 2021. She said the temperature exceeded 24° celsius and it was affecting her health. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its obligations under the HHSRS and the resident’s tenancy agreement.
Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to raise a repair on the same day in accordance with its repairs policy, it is unclear from the housing records what issues were identified during the visit or what action was taken. This demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. This Service expects landlords to keep accurate and clear records of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
The resident told the landlord on 1 December 2021 that she found the excess heating distressful and the issue was not related to the boiler. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This was a failure. The landlord noted on 3 December 2021 that the property was at room temperature and the resident had medical issues which meant she sweat.
The resident told the landlord on 2 February 2022 that the humidity levels were getting worse and had affected her health. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this information. It did not carry out an assessment in accordance with its vulnerable tenants’ policy or order a repair. This was a failure and caused delays.
The landlord did not raise a job to check the boiler until 12 February 2022 and only after the resident made further contact and noted the heating was too high and was causing her to have headaches. Whilst the landlord said it completed the job, it is unclear from the housing records what work was done. Again, it failed to carry out an assessment or consider if there were other factors that could be affecting the temperature levels. Neither did it consider if the resident had any medical conditions that could affect her tolerance levels towards heat. This was a failure.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 18 March 2022 and said the property was too hot. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange an appointment for 19 March 2022 to check the boiler, it again failed to consider if there were other factors that could be affecting the temperature levels.
Given the resident’s ongoing concerns about excessive heat, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed an investigation into her concerns rather than just focus on repairs to the boiler. This could have included installing a heat monitoring device to try and establish the source of the heat and whether it was excessive.
Early monitoring would have informed the landlord of any potential risk that the resident was exposed to and whether it needed to take action to prevent risk of harm. The landlord’s failure to do this meant it did not meet its obligations under the HHSRS.
It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to have discussed the resident’s health concerns with her and explored the potential impact the heating had on these. If appropriate, it should have liaised with her G.P. or other medical practitioners to discuss possible solutions that may have helped. This was a further failure.
The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about excessive heat in its stage 1 complaint response sent on 13 June 2022. This meant the resident was unclear on what steps the landlord was taking to address her concerns and led to her having to escalate her complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) says landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The resident continued to report issues with excess heat between July 2022 and April 2023. While the landlord checked the heating system in accordance with its repairs policy and confirmed it was working correctly, it again, failed to investigate whether the heating was excessive or explore if the resident had any medical conditions that could affect her tolerance levels towards heat. It also failed to make any referrals or signpost the resident to support services. The landlord’s vulnerable tenants’ guide says it will do this.
The resident told the landlord on 15 April 2023 that she could not regulate her body temperature due to spinal injuries and suffered heat exhaustion. She also said she was disabled and had degenerative disc disease and cervical problems which caused severe pain. The resident noted she had been reporting issues with excessive heat for several years and they were not related to the boiler. In addition, she noted she was unable to open the windows in the bathroom and kitchen as she could not reach them.
The landlord incorrectly noted in its final complaint response on 20 June 2023 that the resident’s complaint was about the boiler. This was despite the resident previously informing the landlord there were no issues with the boiler.
Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to highlight the steps that it had taken to check the boiler, it failed to acknowledge the residents’ ongoing concerns about excessive heat and her inability to regulate her body temperature due to her disabilities. This meant the landlord did not take account of the resident’s needs or consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. This was a failure.
Whilst the landlord said it addressed the resident’s concerns about the windows with her, it is unclear what action, if any was taken. This was a further failure.
In summary, the landlord failed to investigate the resident’s concerns of excessive heat. By focusing solely on the boiler, it failed to consider other factors and did not put monitoring arrangements in place to determine the source of the heat and whether it was excessive. This meant it did not consider its obligations under the HHSRS.
The landlord also failed to take account of the resident’s specific needs or consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It is evident the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She told the landlord she suffered from heat exhaustion and the heating was affecting her health. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of excessive heat in the property, for which it is ordered to pay £300 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fluctuations in the water pressure.

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep the installations for the supply of water to the property in repair. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for fittings that supply water.
The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 2 February 2022 that there was no stopcock in the property and the water pressure was high. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns or ordered a repair. This was a failure and meant the landlord did not meet its repairing obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement. This was a failure.
Although the landlord raised a number of jobs in April and May 2022 to check the water pipes and these were marked as completed, it is unclear from the housing records what issues were identified with the water pressure or what repairs, if any were undertaken. This demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
The landlord confirmed on 7 June 2022 that the stopcock was faulty and the water pressure was too high and arranged an appointment for 16 June 2022. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. While a repair was subsequently raised on 29 June 2022 to replace the stopcock, it is unclear from the housing records whether the work was done. Again, this demonstrates poor record keeping.
The landlord’s contractor noted on 6 September 2022 that the fluctuation in the water temperature was due to the mixer tap. It recommended that the mixer tap was replaced and a regulator was fitted to the cold-water mains pipe. It is unclear from the housing records whether the landlord acted on the recommendation.
The resident raised further concerns about the water pressure in November 2022 and December 2022, but again it is unclear from the housing records what work was carried out. The resident told the landlord on 15 April 2023 that there were still issues with the water pressure. There is no evidence the landlord acted on these concerns. This was a further failure.
The landlord told the resident on 20 June 2023 in its final complaint response that multiple repair appointments had been made to resolve the matter and the problem was due to there being no working stopcock in the property. It said the resident needed to contact the water company and arrange for the water supply to be isolated so that the stopcock could be replaced. The landlord’s request was not reasonable given it was responsible for maintaining the fixtures and fittings in the resident’s property.
While the landlord noted the previous suggestion made by the water company to isolate the water supply did not work, it did not share details of the recommendation with this Service. This demonstrated poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
In summary, the landlord’s poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine if its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It is, however, evident it did not resolve the issues with the water pressure in a timely manner and failed to liaise with the water company.
It is evident the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She repeatedly told the landlord there were issues with the water pressure and noted she was unable to use the bath or shower as the hot water was either scalding or loosing heat. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of fluctuations in the water pressure for which it is ordered to pay £200 compensation.
This Service encourages landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reviews following publication. In May 2023, we published our spotlight review on knowledge and information management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with the recommendations in the KIM report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations in the spotlight review unless it can provide evidence it has already completed a self-assessment.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

It is not this Service’s role to establish whether the noise reported by the resident occurred or to determine the cause of the noise. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case. While statutory noise is outside of our jurisdiction, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that she was affected by noise from outside her home and the extractor fans in her home.
Part E of the Building Regulations came into force in the UK in 2003. It prescribes acoustic insulation levels for new and converted residential buildings and sets decibel levels (dBA) for airborne and impact noise. These standards do not apply to any home built or converted before 2003. There is case law that landlords are under no obligation to soundproof homes to a standard above the one that was in force at the time of its construction. In this case, the resident’s tenancy agreement does not place any such obligation on the landlord.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy says it will resolve instances of ASB as early as possible through timely and appropriate interventions. Loud music, shouting and noise from vehicles are included in the landlord’s definition of ASB. The policy also says the landlord will continuously risk assess to understand the impact ASB has on residents and signpost them to relevant support agencies, where appropriate. Noise transfer due to poor sound insulation is not considered ASB.
The landlord’s safety guide says it will respond to all reports of ASB and agree an action plan with the resident, which is confirmed in writing. The guide also says it will work with the council’s noise nuisance team, keep residents updated and use all of the powers available to it. No thresholds are included in the guide setting out the circumstances when the landlord will get involved in noise complaints.
Timescales for responding to reports of ASB are detailed on the landlord’s website as follows:
1. High risk cases are responded to within 24 hours and include threats of physical assault and serious damage to property
2. Medium risk cases are responded to within 5 working days and include allegations of noise nuisance
3. Low risk cases are responded to within 10 working days and include minor neighbour disputes
The resident told the landlord on 2 February 2022 that she experienced noise nuisance from the main road and local pubs. She also said she was unable to open the windows because of the noise, which was nonstop throughout the night. In addition, the resident noted the noise from the extractor fans installed in her home prevented her from sleeping. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s reports. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy and meant the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord’s failure to contact the resident meant it did not carry out a risk assessment or assess if the resident had any specific needs that it needed to be aware of. Had the landlord done so, this would have enabled it to determine the level of noise, assess whether it constituted a nuisance and identify if the resident needed any support given her disabilities. This meant the landlord did not consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and if it needed to make any reasonable adjustments.
It would have also enabled the landlord to assess whether it needed to take any further action and if appropriate, confirm what steps the resident could take to reduce the noise herself, such as installing sound insulation. This would have provided clarity and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations.
There is no evidence the landlord checked the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom at this point. This was a failure and meant the resident was unclear on what action was being taken by the landlord to address her concerns.
It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange an appointment on 7 February 2022 to inspect the windows. This demonstrated it was resolution focused and wanted to put things right for the resident. Whilst the landlord said the job was completed, it is unclear what work, if any was done. This demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
The landlord did not address the resident’s reports of ASB in its stage 1 complaint response. This was a further failure and meant the resident was unclear on what steps the landlord was taking to address her concerns and led to her having to escalate her complaint.
The landlord did not raise a job to check the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom until 29 June 2022; some 5 months after she raised a complaint about the noise levels. It arranged for the windows to be checked again on 17 July 2023. Whilst the landlord said both jobs were completed, it is unclear from the housing records what work, if any was done.
The resident told the landlord on 15 April 2023 that she was ‘‘tormented’’ by noise from the local pubs and traffic on the main road, which was particularly bad in the early hours of the morning. She also said the extractor fans in her home were noisy and affected her sleep. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.
There is no evidence the landlord carried out a meaningful investigation into the resident’s concerns about its handling of her reports of ASB as part of its final complaint response. By simply suggesting she contacted its noise nuisance team, it failed to identify any failings in its response or any learning from this aspect of the complaint. This led to the resident having to raise a complaint with this Service. This Service’s dispute resolution principles encourage landlords to not just resolve the immediate complaint, but to learn from outcomes in order to improve its wider service delivery.
In summary, the landlord did not act on the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It did not carry out a risk assessment, failed to investigate her concerns or consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It also failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It is evident the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She said she was tormented by the noise and it affected her sleep. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, for which it is ordered to pay £200 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the upstairs flat.

The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord’s contractor on 3 December 2022 there was a leak from the upstairs flat. Whilst it was appropriate for the contractor to refer the matter back to the landlord, there is no evidence the landlord acted on this information. This was a failure.
When a resident reports a leak, landlords are expected to identify the source of the water ingress and to establish whether it is responsible for any repairs that would fall under its remit. If the source of the leak is from a neighbouring property, this Service would expect landlords to contact the neighbour, which in this case was a leaseholder and ask them to resolve the matter. If this is not done, landlords should consider if legal proceedings are appropriate to stop the water ingress. There is no evidence the landlord did this. This was a further failure.
The resident told the landlord again on 15 April 2023 there was a possible leak from the upstairs flat. There is no evidence the landlord investigated the resident’s concern. This was a failure.
The landlord told the resident in its final complaint response on 20 June 2023 that it could take no action because the upstairs flat was a leased property. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to note that it was not responsible for repairing any defects in the upstairs flat, it did have an obligation to investigate the resident’s concerns and ensure her home was free of water ingress from neighbouring properties. If appropriate, this could have included taking action against the leaseholder if the leak was not fixed within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s comments were dismissive and would have been distressing for the resident. This was a further failure.
In summary, the landlord failed to investigate the resident’s concerns about a leak from the upstairs flat. It did not contact her neighbour or take steps to ensure the leaseholder resolved any potential issues. It is evident the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She told the landlord she was concerned about humidity levels and she wanted to move. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the upstairs flat, for which it is ordered to pay £200 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days and residents are told who will be investigating their complaint and the date when they can expect to receive a response. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 25 working days. If extra time is required, the landlord says it will provide an interim response, explain the reason for the delay and tell the resident when they can expect to receive a reply.
The resident made a complaint on 2 February 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. Neither did it seek to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes she was seeking. This was not in accordance with the Code.
The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 13 June 2022; some 4 months after the resident made her complaint. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology for the delay, it did not address all of the points raised by the resident in her complaint. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
Whilst the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, it did not offer any compensation for the delays or the poor communication, which it acknowledged would have been beneficial. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord also failed to identify any learning from the complaint. This was a failure.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 15 April 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or seek to understand the resident’s concerns or the outcomes she was seeking. This was a further failure.
The landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 20 June 2023. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord did not offer an apology for the delay in responding or confirm whether the complaint was upheld or not. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord also failed to identify any learning from the complaint. This was a failure.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy and there were delays in issuing its complaint responses. The landlord failed to address all of the concerns raised by the resident, did not identify any learning or offer compensation. It is evident the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She told the landlord she repeatedly raised concerns and there had been multiple visits to her home, but the problems remained outstanding and she wanted to move as a result.
In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, for which it is ordered to pay £150 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of excessive heat in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of fluctuations in the water pressure.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the upstairs flat.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1,150 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of excessive heat in the property
2. £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of fluctuations in the water pressure
3. £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of noise nuisance
4. £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of a leak from the upstairs flat
5. £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her complaint
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and gather accurate information about her medical conditions. It must update its records accordingly. An update must be provided to this Service.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident setting out its position regarding the heating and what steps it will take to monitor the heating levels in the property. This must include details on the timescales for installing any equipment and the length of the monitoring period. The landlord must also agree what support and adjustments are required with the resident, including what information it needs from her G.P. A copy of the letter must be provided to this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident setting out its position regarding the stopcock. This must include details on the timescales for completing the work, if it has not already been done. A copy of the letter must be shared with this Service.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident setting out its position regarding the bathroom and kitchen windows. This must include details on the timescales for completing any work. The landlord must also agree what support and adjustments are required with the resident, if not already done so. A copy of the letter must be provided to this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to confirm its position regarding the possible leak from the upstairs flat and take action, as appropriate. This must include details on the timescales of any actions it plans to take. A copy of the letter must be provided to this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident setting out its position regarding the noise levels. This must include details on the timescales of any actions it plans to take. A copy of the letter must be provided to this Service