The Riverside Group Limited (202312828)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312828

The Riverside Group Limited

28 October 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the levels of dust and noise from demolition works and her request for compensation.

Background

The property is a 3-bedroom terraced house. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 5 February 2001.
The landlord has advised this Service that it has not been made aware of any vulnerabilities for the resident.

Summary of events

A report produced by the Architect for the redevelopment works on 6 March 2023 stated that it had reviewed the Construction Phase Plan documents issued by the contractor and had provided comments/observations on the documents. The report stated that the principal contractor had to “provide demolition contractor risk assessments and method statements, including proposals for dust control, noise control…”.
The landlord’s records state that the main contractor took possession of the site on 6 March 2023 and the demolition works commenced in mid-March 2023.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord on 15 May 2023 to make a complaint about the redevelopment work, particularly the demolition works. The resident stated that she had previously been advised that residents would receive compensation for the inconvenience caused by the works. However, she said the landlord had now advised her that residents would not be compensated. The resident requested compensation for the dust that had affected her windows and car. She also stated that the dust was getting into her eyes and mouth. She stated that she was unable to open her windows and had problems getting in and out of her road because of the contractor’s vehicles.
The landlord contacted the resident on 16 May 2023 to discuss the complaint and it was advised by the resident that she was seeking compensation.
The landlord sent its stage one letter on 23 May 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed that it had visited the resident’s home on 15 May 2023.
2. The landlord said it had checked the various documents relating to the consultation meetings it had held with residents regarding the demolition and building works. The landlord confirmed it had agreed to try to minimise disruption to residents.
3. The landlord stated that during the consultations, there were no discussions about financial reimbursement to residents. Therefore, the landlord said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
4. The landlord said it had spoken to the site manager regarding the reported disruption to residents due to large machinery and vehicles needing access onto the estate. The site manager had advised the landlord that he had spoken to the operatives and asked them “to be mindful of residents”.
5. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused during the works and noted that the resident had reported dust from the works had settled on her windows and on her car. The landlord had therefore agreed to carry out window cleaning on the estate once all the demolition work had been completed.
The landlord’s records state that the demolition works were completed at the end of May or the start of June 2023 (the exact date is unclear from the information seen).
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord on 2 June 2023 and asked for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord spoke to the resident on 6 June 2023 to discuss the complaint and wrote to her on the same day requesting her to submit the photographs and videos she had referred to. The resident therefore sent the photographs and videos to the landlord on the same day.
On 7 June 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge her request to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
On 8 June 2023, the independent health and safety advisor employed on the contract carried out a safety inspection of the site. His inspection report stated that dust was not evident on the day of the inspection.
The landlord contacted the resident on 8 and 14 June 2023 to discuss her concerns about the redevelopment works.
The contractor wrote to the landlord on 15 June 2023 and stated the following:
1. Dust suppression sprayers were in use during the works.
2. The contractor’s working hours were in line with the local authority’s requirements.
3. There may have been some dust present because it was an open demolition site and therefore it would not have been possible to eliminate the dust due to cross winds
On 4 July 2023, the landlord attended a project team meeting involving the contractor and other representatives to discuss the redevelopment project. The minutes stated that the landlord had received a formal complaint from the resident regarding the demolition works. The minutes noted that the landlord had requested information from the contractor and the contractor should therefore respond. The minutes also confirmed that the demolition works had been completed.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident on 4 July 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed it had spoken to the resident about her complaint on 8 June 2023 and she had explained that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s proposal to carry out additional window cleaning onsite to clean dust that had settled from the demolition and building work.
2. The resident had stated that other social landlords in the area had offered their residents compensation and disturbance costs. The resident added that the landlord had agreed during one of the consultation meetings to pay residents a disturbance payment. However, the landlord said it had checked the minutes of the meetings and could not find any reference to such an agreement.
3. The landlord confirmed it had investigated the resident’s concerns and its findings were:
  1. Dust suppression sprayers were in use during the works.
  2. Working hours were in line with local authority working. Working hours on site were 7.30am until 5.00pm.
  3. The contractors took every precaution to minimise noise from building works, including noise prevention, attempts made to minimise disruption and operating only within working hours. The landlord added that now the demolition had been completed, the noise and disruption should be reduced significantly, apart from the planned piling scheduled in the forthcoming weeks.
4. The landlord pointed out that as with any building works there would always be noise. The landlord accepted that there may have been some dust from the demolition. It stated that as it was an open demolition site with cross winds, no amount of water suppression would reduce all the dust.
5. The landlord stated that a health and safety consultant, who was independent of the principal contractor, had inspected the site on 8 June 2023 and had stated that no dust was present at the time of inspection. The landlord attached a copy of the consultant’s report.
6. The landlord said its Development team had raised the resident’s concerns with the main contractor and the contractor’s General Manager said he was happy for his contact details to be provided to the resident to assist with any queries.
7. The landlord said its project manager had been onsite on 2, 3 and 12 May 2023 to document the demolition for the landlord’s records and had not identified any concerns regarding the level of dust or other issues with the work.
8. The landlord confirmed that residents had been consulted about the work on various occasions.
9. The landlord said in addition to the window cleaning, it was prepared to clean any residents’ cars that had been affected by dust. It confirmed it would write to all residents with this offer.
The contractor wrote to the landlord on 5 July 2023 and stated that its working hours on site were 7.30am to 5.00pm. The contractor advised that it had made attempts to minimise disruption and would arrange for residents’ windows to be cleaned as a goodwill gesture.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 July 2023 and said the landlord had not mentioned that the contractor had been working during the weekends, including Sundays, and on bank holidays. She stated that the contractor sometimes started work from 7am. She disputed the health and safety inspector’s statement that no dust had been present on 8 June 2023 as she had taken videos on this date. The resident emphasised that the residents had only complained about noise during weekends and bank holidays. However, the main complaint had been about the dust.
The landlord replied to the resident on the same date (10 July 2023) and stated the contractor had reported that it had been using sprayers (to suppress the dust). The landlord said it would ask the contractor to comment on the resident’s statement that the contractor had been working during weekends and bank holidays.
On 11 July 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had forwarded all the resident’s videos and photographs to the contractor for consideration.
The resident wrote to this Service on 18 February 2024, 14 and 16 April 2024 to report ongoing problems regarding the impact of the works on her road and problems regarding the contractor’s parking. She provided photographs and mentioned that her car had been bumped and scratched by other vehicles.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 17 October 2024 and provided the following additional information:
1. The landlord said it had received a petition from residents on 6 July 2023. It stated that the issues raised in the body of the petition were highlighted with the contractors at the time and this informed their response. The issues were then addressed in the complaint response letter sent to the resident.
2. After receiving the petition, the contractor completed window cleaning for all the residents and offered to clean the resident’s car.
3. The landlord provided this Service with a copy of the Construction Phase Plan for the works, which was approved on 30 January 2023. The plan stated:
  1. “Working hours generally are strictly limited to 8.00am – 6.00pm. The Employer may occasionally permit working on Saturday mornings in special circumstances (limited to 8.00am – 1.00pm)”.
  2. Dust suppression was to be used as required. Noise suppressed plant was also to be used.
The Employer’s Agent wrote to the landlord on 16 October 2024 to confirm that the contractor was responsible for adhering to the working hours as set out in the contract between the landlord and the contractor.
On 21 October 2024, the resident provided this Service with a copy of an email, which she had sent to the landlord on 6 June 2023 attaching a petition signed by various residents on the estate, including the resident herself. The petition complained about the level of dust from the development. It stated that the residents could not open their windows because of the dust and that their windows and cars were affected by the dust. The residents stated that the contractor was working weekends and bank holidays starting at 7am or 7.30am.
The resident also advised this Service on 21 October 2024 that:
1. She did not see the windows being cleaned but accepted that she may have been away from home when it was carried out.
2. She stated that the contractor did not wash her car.
3. The resident confirmed that she did not have any written evidence that the landlord had previously agreed to compensate residents for any inconvenience caused by the works. She stated that the landlord had verbally advised the residents of this at a consultation meeting.
4. The resident disputed the information from the health and safety adviser that no dust had been evident at his inspection on 8 June 2023. She said that she had video evidence that there was excessive dust present.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wrote to this Service in February and April 2024 to report ongoing problems in relation to the impact of the redevelopment works. She mentioned that her car had been bumped and scratched by other vehicles. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response on 4 July 2023. Information following the landlord’s final response has, however, been included in this report for context.
The Ombudsman has received various videos and photographs relating to the redevelopment works that were carried out. The Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on video or photographic evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the videos/photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, the Ombudsman does not generally place significant reliance on videos or photographs in reaching its decisions.
The resident complained about the levels of dust and noise generated by the redevelopment works, particularly during the demolition phase. Based on the evidence seen, this Service is not in a position to decide whether the levels of dust and noise were reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, the Ombudsman has focussed on whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about dust and noise was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The resident’s concerns about the levels of dust and noise from demolition works and her request for compensation

The resident contacted the landlord on 15 May 2023 to complain about the demolition work that was taking place. She advised the landlord that the dust generated by the works was covering her windows and her car. She also said it was getting in her eyes and mouth. The resident stated that residents had previously been told by the landlord that they would receive compensation for the inconvenience caused by the works. The landlord contacted the resident on the next day to discuss her complaint. The landlord therefore acted in a timely manner to contact the resident to obtain further details about her complaint.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 23 May 2023 and advised the resident that it had checked the documents relating to the consultation meetings it had held with residents. The landlord said it could not find evidence of any discussions about compensating residents and therefore it would not provide compensation. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of an agreement by the landlord to compensate residents for inconvenience caused by the redevelopment work and the resident has confirmed to this Service that she did not receive any written confirmation of this from the landlord.
In situations where there are conflicting accounts about commitments that may have been given, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to reach conclusions. In this instance, there is no written record of the landlord agreeing to compensate residents. Therefore, with insufficient evidence to confirm either way whether the landlord agreed to compensate residents, it would not be possible for the Ombudsman, as an independent arbiter, to establish that the landlord agreed to compensate residents.
The landlord’s records show that it investigated the resident’s complaint about dust and other issues from the demolition work by speaking to its Development team and to the contractor. The landlord also arranged physical inspections of the site, including:
1. The landlord said that its project manager had been on site on 2, 3 and 12 May 2023 to document the demolition and had not identified any concerns regarding the levels of dust.
2. The independent health and safety adviser assigned to the project carried out a site inspection on 8 June 2023. He noted in his report that dust was not evident on the day of his inspection.
The evidence therefore shows that the landlord carried out reasonable investigations in relation to the resident’s concerns about excessive dust. Having carried out these investigations, the landlord said it was satisfied that the contractor was meeting the health and safety requirements in relation to the contract.
The resident has disputed the health and safety advisor’s findings and stated that she has video evidence showing there was excessive dust at the time. The Ombudsman does not doubt the information presented by the resident, however, as the health and safety advisor had carried out an inspection and produced a contemporaneous report, the landlord was entitled to rely on his findings regarding the levels of dust.
The resident also disputed that the contractor used any water during the demolition work to suppress the dust. In the absence of any records regarding the use of dust suppression sprayers, the Ombudsman is not in a position to determine the extent to which they were used during the demolition work. However, the Construction Phase Plan, which was prepared on behalf of the contractor prior to the start of works, stipulated that dust suppression was to be used as required. Therefore, the landlord had taken reasonable steps before the work started to require the contractor to use dust suppression equipment.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord confirmed the offer made by its contractor to clean residents’ windows and added that it was also prepared to clean residents’ cars. As the resident had raised concerns that dust had covered her windows and her car, it was reasonable for the landlord to have offered to clean the windows and the resident’s car to put things right.
The resident had advised the landlord in her stage one complaint that there was disruption to residents entering and leaving the estate due to large machinery and vehicles needing access onto the estate. The landlord said in its stage one reply that it had spoken to the site manager regarding the issue and consequently he had instructed the operatives “to be mindful of residents”. The nature of the work meant that large construction vehicles had to enter and leave the site and therefore it was likely this would be disruptive to residents. Therefore, it was appropriate for the contractor to make the operatives aware of the difficulties this was causing to residents so they could be mindful of this when operating the vehicles.
One of the other concerns raised by the resident in her complaint and in the residents’ petition was about the contractor’s working hours. The concerns were that the contractor had been working weekends and bank holidays starting at 7.00am or 7.30am. The landlord addressed this in its stage 2 reply and stated that working hours on site were in line with local authority working and were 7.30am to 5.00pm.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the local authority’s website for information on the standard hours of work for contractors. The website states:
1. “The standard permitted hours of work for activities which would be audible beyond the site boundary are:
  1. Monday to Friday: 8am to 6pm
  2. Saturday: 8am to 1pm
  3. Sundays and bank holidays: No working”
2. “Where a contractor identifies a need to work outside normal hours, you should liaise as soon as possible with the council’s Environmental Protection Team to discuss your proposals”.
The Construction Phase Plan also stated: “Working hours generally are strictly limited to 8.00am – 6.00pm. The Employer may occasionally permit working on Saturday mornings in special circumstances (limited to 8.00am – 1.00pm)”.
Therefore, the start time of 7.30am quoted in the landlord’s stage 2 reply was not in accordance with the local authority’s standard hours of work or with the contractor’s Construction Phase Plan. Furthermore, the landlord did not address the complaint stated in the petition that the contractor was working weekends and bank holidays.
The Ombudsman is unable to determine the extent to which the contractor may have worked outside of the standard hours of work. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord did not provide an adequate response in its stage 2 reply regarding the contractor’s working hours. The landlord had received the following information, which should have prompted it to provide a more complete reply regarding the issue of the contractor’s working hours:
1. The resident had sent the landlord a petition on 6 June 2023 signed by various residents on the estate stating that the contractor had been commencing work at 7.00am or 7.30am and had been working weekends and bank holidays.
2. The contractor had advised the landlord that it had been working from 7.30am, rather than from 8.00am as required by the local authority and the Construction Phase Plan.
Although the contractor was responsible for planning and managing the construction phase of the project, the landlord as the client was ultimately responsible for ensuring the contractor was complying with its duties. This would include the requirements relating to the hours of work. The landlord was also responsible to its residents for investigating and responding to their concerns about the redevelopment work.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not adequately address the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s working hours in its stage 2 reply. The landlord’s response to this matter is considered unreasonable because:
1. The landlord did not address the resident’s specific concerns about the contractor working during weekends and bank holidays.
2. The landlord quoted working hours that were outside of the local authority’s standard working hours and the Construction Phase Plan without providing an explanation.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 July 2023 and questioned why it had not mentioned her concerns about the contractor working weekends, including Sundays and bank holidays. She was therefore concerned that the landlord had not addressed this point.
In summary, given the proximity of the resident’s estate to the redevelopment site, it was inevitable that residents would experience some level of disruption and inconvenience during the works. There is evidence that the landlord used consultation meetings and correspondence to manage residents’ expectations in relation to the disturbance.
The Ombudsman has found that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of excessive dust being generated by the demolition work. The landlord was entitled to rely on information from its staff, the contractor and the health and safety advisor that the levels of dust were not excessive in the circumstances and that appropriate measures were being taken to suppress the levels of dust. The landlord (through its contractor) offered to clean the resident’s windows and her car, which was reasonable. However, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord did not adequately address the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s working hours.
The Ombudsman has therefore found there was a service failure due to the quality of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s working hours. The landlord has been ordered to pay compensation of £50 to put things right in terms of its failure to address this point adequately. The amount ordered is within the range of sums recommended in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the levels of dust and noise from demolition works and her request for compensation.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns about excessive dust from the demolition work, it did not adequately investigate and respond to her concerns about the contractor’s working hours.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to pay the resident £50 for its failure to respond adequately to her concerns about the contractor’s working hours.