The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Waltham Forest Council (202004117)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004117

Waltham Forest Council

30 April 2021


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 resident has complained that the landlord has taken too long to resolve their reports of subsidence at the building where they live, and offered insufficient compensation in its response.

Background

  1. Subsidence has been an issue at the resident’s home since 2018. It has also affected the neighbouring property in that time. The earliest document on file is a structural survey of the neighbouring property. This survey noted:
    1. That cracks were visible in the neighbouring property.
    2. That trees in the neighbouring property and in the resident’s property needed to be cut back or removed and studied further.
    3. That the drains needed to be inspected.
    4. That it recommended the landlord arrange test pits to study the ground further.
  2. This survey is of note as the landlord’s later surveys would identify the trees and the drains as the likely cause of the subsidence.
  3. The earliest document on file specifically related to the resident’s property is a December 2018 repair request from the resident. However this request also referred to earlier repairs and measurements being taken by the landlord, and the landlord’s internal correspondence refers to repairs to cracks in the property in September 2018.The December repair request reported widening cracks, damage to wallpaper, doors that no longer aligned and the resulting cold in the property that was affecting the family.
  4. The resident had to chase the report in January 2019 (despite the landlord’s internal correspondence saying it would reply by the end of December). The landlord’s Housing Department building surveyor visited in January and concluded remedial works were required, the cracks needed monitoring and the property needed adding to an unspecified list managed by the Insurance Department. It is assumed this list relates to the fact the neighbouring property had been under investigation since February 2018, as seen in the survey noted above. There is internal correspondence to show the Housing Department chased the Insurance Department a month later for an update.
  5. The landlord’s correspondence refers to a loss adjuster’s report sometime between February and March 2019. Although a copy of this report has not been provided it recommended that trees around the two properties were cut back or removed. The landlord’s internal correspondence then shows the Housing Department chased the department responsible for tree maintenance from March until September 2019.
  6. It is not clear what other action was taken during this time. The majority of the correspondence and reports on file relate to autumn 2019 onwards. There is no specific evidence of actions during spring and summer 2019.
  7. The department responsible for the tress raised a number of queries in September 2019 including: why no trial pit had been dug; that the soil had not been monitored; and that no drain survey had been completed.
  8. A structural appraisal was completed in October 2019. It concluded the subsidence was caused by either ‘desiccation of the soil be nearby trees’; and/or that the drainage pipes ‘looked to have leaked.’ Therefore the survey recommended that: trees were wither cut back or removed; soil and drain surveys were needed; masonry, foundations, pipes/guttering all required investigation and repair.
  9. Works to cut back or remove the relevant trees were completed in October and December 2019.
  10. During this time (September-October 2019) the internal correspondence shows the Insurance Department chasing an update from the Housing Department. It appears the Insurance Department did not know how the case was being handled, and in response that the Housing Department were not clear on how issues such as this were normally managed (eg which consultants completed the surveys and any resulting works).
  11. Also at this time (September 2019) the repair logs show that works were raised for repairs to the garden door, bedroom doors garage door. The log does not show when the repairs were completed. In December 2019 the resident also reported blocked drains and a leak in the basement.
  12. A CCTV drainage survey was completed in November 2019 for the neighbouring property. It recommended that all drains would benefit from a high pressure clean. It also noted two cracks with roots entering the pipes. Therefore it also recommended the foul drain was excavated and renewed, as well as earth removed from a separate soakaway.
  13. The tenant submitted an enquiry via their MP in November and their own complaint in December 2019. Their concerns were:
    1. That the cracks had been widening for two years.
    2. They had not been kept updated.
    3. It was affecting their family’s health and increasing their heating bills.
  14. The landlord responded to the MP and sent its stage 1 response to the resident in December 2019. It explained:
    1. The results of the structural and drain survey would be sent to the Insurance Department.
    2. It would thermal board the bedrooms once structural repairs were completed.
    3. The trees had been cut back or removed.
    4. The doors had been repaired and there were no cracks in the property where daylight showed.
    5. That subsidence repairs were more complex and required longer term monitoring than standard repairs.
  15. The resident reported further cracks in their walls in February 2020. They also escalated their formal complaint as they had not received an update, and re-raised the issue through their MP.
  16. The landlord’s internal correspondence in February 2020 suggests:
    1. It was trying to secure a report to recommend what works were required and their cost, however the consultants for these recommendations had re-raised the need for drainage surveys and trial pits.
    2. There were delays in the communication between the Housing and Insurance Departments and in arranging the trial pits and a CCTV survey of the resident’s drains.
  17. The landlord’s internal correspondence for March shows the CCTV and structural surveys had been completed, and one of the two trial pits required had been dug. The drain survey showed two complete blockages and ‘multiple breakages.’
  18. The landlord sent its stage 2 (final) response to the complaint in April 2020. It explained:
    1. There had been poor communication between the Insurance, Tree and Property services. This delayed the actions recommended in the October 2018 report for the neighbouring property.
    2. That there had been a lack of updates to the resident in 2019 and 2020.
    3. That the landlord would offer £875 for the inconvenience calculated from:
      1. £175 previously offered in February that is not detailed in the correspondence provided.
      2. £300 for the delay in acting on the reports’ recommendations.
      3. £150 for distress and inconvenience.
      4. £150 for the lack of communication.
      5. £100 for the resident’s time in having to pursue the issue and complaint.
    4. The landlord also offered to refund excessive energy costs if the resident could provide supporting statements from before and after the increase to evidence the increase.
    5. That it would not pay a rent rebate for the second bedroom as the property was considered habitable throughout.
    6. That any damaged belongings would be for the resident to claim on their own contents insurance or through the landlord’s insurer.
    7. The final response did not provide any information about the ongoing works/monitoring or how it would manage them in the future, including if there were any additional delays.
  19. From the documents provided it appears the landlord’s internal correspondence between the Housing Insurance Departments continued into June. By this time there was a work specification and cost, however there were then discussions about Section 20 consultation with neighbouring leaseholders.

Assessment

  1. It is clear there have been repeated delays in the landlord’s investigation of the subsidence at the property. The landlord has upheld this complaint. The role of the Housing Ombudsman is to determine how a landlord has responded to a formal complaint. Therefore the response is as important as the events which led to it. In this case it means the assessment is about whether the landlord’s April 2020 offer was a reasonable response to the complaint.
  2. The compensation offer is broken down, however it lacks explanation. It is not clear how the landlord has differentiated between inconvenience and time and trouble. There is compensation specifically for the delayed response to the 2018 survey; and for the lack of communication. However the landlord has not explicitly aligned any of the payments with the time taken to repair the various doors or the time taken to arrange the drainage and trial pit surveys.
  3. The landlord’s failures in this case were:
    1. 12-14 month period to arrange works to trees following October 2018 survey of neighbouring property.
    2. Failure to arrange drainage survey or trial pits following October 2018 survey recommendations.
    3. 9 months to arrange repairs to the various misaligned doors.
    4. The 9 months (January-October 2019) between the Housing Surveyor’s visit and the first structural survey of the resident’s property, despite their reports of widening cracks in December 2018.
    5. Although the neighbouring drains were surveys in November 2019 following the October 2019 structural survey; the resident’s drains were not surveyed until March 2020 (4 months later).
    6. Trial pits were recommended in October 2018, September 2019, October 2019 but only first dug in March 2020.
  4. The most important factor was the landlord’s poor internal communication and organisation. It appears there was no clear process for how to investigate or resolve reported subsidence at the landlord’s own properties. At different stages the Housing, Insurance and Tree services all chased each other for updates or asked each other to take the lead. They each sought advice from one another on how such cases would normally be investigated and repaired with no clear answer given in the correspondence on file.
  5. This poor internal organisation meant that the surveys that were ultimately completed in March 2020 had first been recommended in October 2018, and then re-raised in September 2019 and during winter 2019/20.
  6. The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Guidance on Remedies states:

“Awards of £700 and above – Remedies in the range of these amounts are used in recognition of maladministration / severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. Remedies in this range will be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both.”

  1. Therefore the landlord’s overall offer of £875 falls into our most significant compensation offer range. However despite this, the combination of failures listed above, together with the landlord’s inadequate communication, merits further redress. In Particular:
    1. The landlord has offered a combined £250 for the lack of communication and the resident’s resulting time and trouble.
    2. The landlord has offered £300 for the time taken to action the October 2018 report. This is a reasonable offer, and relates to point 23a and 23b above.
    3. This leaves the unspecified £175 and the £150 for distress and inconvenience from the landlord’s offer. However the failures listed above but not explicitly included in the landlord’s offer included: the time taken to arrange the structural survey despite their own surveyor’s request; the time taken to repair the doors; the time taken to arrange the drainage survey (despite one having been completed next door); and the time taken to arrange trial pits despite repeated recommendations. Therefore the landlord has not yet offered sufficient compensation to acknowledge the various failures in its handling of this case.
  2. The landlord has responded to the resident’s reported increase in heating costs by inviting them to provide the supporting gas bills. This is a reasonable response given the severity of the required repairs and the likely impact the cracks, misaligned doors and damp may have had on heating.
  3. The resident has highlighted the impact the situation had on their family’s health. The Housing Ombudsman Service cannot determine claims for compensation for the impact a case has had on someone’s health. Equally we would not expect the landlord to handle such a claim through its complaint procedure. A claim for compensation due to health issues requires an assessment of liability. Only the courts can provide a decision of liability following a personal injury claim by the resident against the landlord. Therefore they would first need to seek appropriate independent legal advice.
  4. The landlord was correct to explain that a claim for damaged belongings would be for insurers to assess and respond to. All residents are advised to arrange their own contents insurance in case their belongings are damaged (including during repair issues). If the residents insurer believed the landlord to then be liable it could pursue the matter with the landlord or its insurer.

Determination

  1. I can confirm in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service there has been maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint about its handling of the subsidence.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s poor internal organisation/processes caused long delays in both the investigation and the resulting recommended works. Furthermore while the responses to the complaint identified the poor internal communication, it did not explain how this issue had been addressed for the sake of future cases. This is of particular importance in this case, as by the time of the final response the investigation was still ongoing and the majority of the remedial work not yet identified.

Orders and recommendations

  1. As a result of the determination the landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
    1. Pay the resident an additional £575 in compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience they have experienced. This is calculated from:
      1. £400 for the time taken to arrange the structural survey following the housing surveyor’s request.
      2. £200 for the time taken to complete the door repairs.
      3. £100 for the time taken to arrange the drainage survey compared to the neighbouring property.
      4. £200 for the time taken to arrange the trial pits despite repeated recommendations.
      5. NB This totals £900, however the landlord’s unspecified offers of £175 and £150 noted above have then been taken off this total, resulting in the order for an additional £575.
    2. Contact the resident to discuss how the subsidence has been managed from April 2020 onwards. This period is not included in this case. Therefore any feedback about further delays or poor communication should be investigated and responded to as required by the landlord (including further redress if merited).
  2. The landlord is also recommended to:
    1. Review its internal process for handling reports of subsidence at its properties. There should be a clear process for which department is responsible for bringing the investigation and required repairs to a close, and the expectations that are placed on other departments to support this. All relevant staff should be reminded/trained in this process to avoid the repeated queries and delays seen in this case.