Tamworth Borough Council (202119843)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119843

Tamworth Borough Council

4 August 2022


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 concerns:
    1. Historical reports made by the resident of subsidence in the property.
    2. Repair work done to the property once it became vacant.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence. the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

Historical reports made by the resident of subsidence in the property

  1. As part of his complaint, the resident has stated his dissatisfaction with how his reports of subsidence and structural issues with the property were handled by the landlord between 2014 and 2018.
  2. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  3. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to 2021. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in June 2021.

Background

  1. The resident was formally a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a house. The resident had an ongoing dispute with the landlord as to whether the property suffered from subsidence. The landlord’s repair logs and records state that between 2014 and 2018 the landlord commissioned two structural reports, a drain survey and a surveyor’s inspection. A further surveyor’s inspection occurred in January 2020. The resident moved out of the property on 25 April 2021.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 June 2021 and requested to raise a complaint regarding the level of work done to the property since it became vacant. The resident described his dissatisfaction that this work had not been undertaken while he lived in the property and that the amount of work which had been raised supported his position that there were underlying problems which were not addressed by the landlord when he was the occupier.
  3. A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 21 July 2021. The landlord explained that when he vacated the property, it then worked with its contractors to ensure that the property was in a lettable standard for the next occupier. It also explained that it was satisfied with how it dealt with the resident’s historical reports relating to subsidence.
  4. Following an escalation request from the resident, a stage two complaint response was sent by the landlord on 28 September 2021. The landlord informed the resident that it stood by its position as stated in the stage one response and explained that it had undertaken some remedial repairs that were not possible while the property was occupied.
  5. In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident explained that the outstanding issues to the complaint were that the landlord had not properly addressed the structural issues in the property until he had moved out and only undertook temporary repairs whilst he was living at the property. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to receive compensation for living in an unsafe property and for the landlord to be honest about what repairs had been undertaken since he had moved out.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. Section 13 of the landlord’s repairs policy relates to void and empty property repairs. This, in part, states as follows:
    1. “When a property becomes vacant and the keys returned to us, we will instruct our contractors to undertake repairs and improvements to the property to bring the property to the standards as defined in the lettable standard.
    2. This standard is available by request and given to all new tenants who move into a council property. A sample of void properties are checked by tenant inspectors.
    3. On occasions, planned works such as replacement kitchens or bathrooms will be identified as being needed in the near future. These are not always replaced while the property is empty but a date will be given to the new tenant of when the works will be completed.”
  2. In regard to flooring, the landlord’s lettable standard states as follows:
    1. “Solid floors should be sound and cleanable. Loose debris should be removed and any missing or broken floor tiles replaced and matched with existing as far as possible.
    2. Timber and chipboard floors should be sound, even and cleanable.
    3. Missing boards will be replaced. Loose and/or creaking floorboards shall, where practicable, be re-secured to joists.
    4. Flooring that is stained or contaminated through human or animal misuse shall be cleaned and where necessary painted and/or sealed with floor paint If the staining is so extensive as to make this impractical, it shall be renewed.”

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of his complaint, the resident has highlighted the adverse effect on his health that the condition of the property had caused. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or to the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim.
  2. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded.

Work done to the property once it became vacant

  1. The landlord has provided this Service with the repair logs for the property. This states that after the property became vacant, an inspection was arranged for 27 April 2021 and a number of repair work orders were then raised between 27 April 2021 and 5 May 2021. The repair logs describe the work as:
    1. Renew the internal doors, renew the lock cylinder to the external door and renew a section of the architrave around one side of the external door.
    2. Remove and refix the bath panel and washbasin.
    3. Repair leak on copper waste pipe.
    4. Overhaul WC
    5. Remove and refix the kitchen worktops and kitchen units
    6. Strip polystyrene tiles and skim coat the ceilings.
    7. Make good new boiler location.
    8. Remove fire and seal opening.
    9. Renew the skirting boards.
    10. Renew internal concrete insulation in the flooring and screw down floorboards.
    11. Hack up the screed and lay new 40mm thick screed.
    12. Install heat detector and radio link alarm.
    13. Remove the path base and lay a new concrete bed.
    14. Renew the fence.
    15. Repair and make good plaster where needed.
    16. Renew power outlets where needed.
    17. Hack up floor tiles and lay new vinyl floor tiles.
    18. Hack off and make good wall tiles where needed.
    19. Renew window quadrant trim.
    20. Renew light batten holder and flex lampholder.
    21. Rake out and repoint brickwork.
    22. Clear debris from the garden.
    23. Clean the property to a lettable standard.
  2. In requesting an escalation of the complaint, the resident noted that the kitchen floor had been removed and extensive work undertaken to the exterior of the property. The resident stated that this level of work was as a result of structural repairs required to the property which should have been done while he occupied it.
  3. The resident also explained that the work to the kitchen floor would have been undertaken while he occupied the property, but the landlord only offered him bed and breakfast as temporary accommodation while the repairs were completed, which would have resulted in his dogs having to be put in kennels during the repairs. He therefore declined to move to a bed and breakfast and the repairs were not completed until after he moved out. 
  4. The 2014 & 2016 structural reports noted that there was evidence of deflection in the flooring of the kitchen and utility room. The 2018 structural report made no mention of the flooring in the property and was concerned with evidence of structural problems and subsidence, none of which was found. A further structural report undertaken in January 2020 noted that the work to the kitchen floor and lobby floors remained outstanding as this repair was declined by the resident on the grounds that that the work would have an impact on his health due to dust. The 2020 report also confirmed that the deflection of the flooring was not a structural issue.
  5. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer to the resident to arrange to be temporary rehoused in light of the resident’s health condition, to allow the landlord to complete repairs to the flooring. Social landlords can offer alternative accommodation from their current stock of vacant properties; however, it will not always be possible for the landlord to have a suitable property available at the time. Therefore, if the proposed work is expected to last for a short period of time (up to a few weeks), an offer of temporary accommodation, such a bed and breakfast, is reasonable in the circumstances. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for declining the landlord’s offer of a bed and breakfast due to the affect this would have on his pets. However, the landlord is not at fault for the delay this caused to completing repair works at the property.
  6. The landlord received a quote from its contractor on 14 April 2014 which estimated that the recommended repair work would take four to five working days to complete. Therefore, as the resident would be required to be temporarily rehoused for approximately one week, it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest bed and breakfast accommodation for the period in question. It would have been helpful if the landlord had explained its position on decanting (temporary moves) to the resident clearly at the time; however, due to the time that has elapsed, it is not clear that it did so.
  7. Overall, the landlord has properly followed its policies and procedures as described above once the property became vacant by arranging an inspection and raising the necessary work orders to ensure that the property was in compliance with its lettable standard. The landlord’s repair logs do not show any reports made by the resident relating to the recommended work highlighted by the void inspection, outside of the outstanding work to the kitchen floor described above.
  8. There is no evidence that the void inspection discovered structural issues in the property, and none of the repairs raised in the void period relate to structural issues or to subsidence. The work to the kitchen floor was to renew the tiles in line with the landlord’s lettable standard and would have been undertaken at the time the resident occupied the property if the landlord and resident had been able to reach an agreement for suitable temporary rehousing to allow the work to go ahead. The work outside of the property was to renew the path and fencing, and to repoint the brickwork; there is no mention of structural issues in regard to these repairs in the repair logs.
  9. The resident has also raised concerns that the property had yet to be occupied in the 12 months since he moved out. It is unclear from the information available why the property had yet to be occupied. There could be various reasons for this, which could be linked to repairs (as suggested by the resident), but also other reasons such as a lack of tenants who are suitable for that particular property based on their requirements. The Ombudsman acknowledges that it would have been distressing for the resident and his family to feel they had to leave their home after a very long tenancy due to repair issues. While it is wholly understandable that the resident would raise concerns about how the landlord has managed the property since he moved out after many years of occupancy, no direct evidence has been provided to show that the period that the property has remained vacant can be linked to structural problems or subsidence.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the repair work done to the property once it became vacant.