Town and Country Housing (202204373)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204373

Town and Country Housing

6 April 2023

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 response to the resident’s complaint concerning structural issues with his property.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy that began on 15 November 1999. The property was a two bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association.

Responsive repairs policy

The landlord’s repairs policy explained that repairs were classified by two categories of response time, which were ‘emergency’ and ‘by appointment’. It said its target completion time for repairs classified as ‘emergency’ was 24 hours. The policy did not include a target completion time for repairs classified as ‘by appointment’, but referred to appointments being ‘mutually convenient’.
The policy included a section about ‘insurance works’. It explained that the cost of some works were recoverable from the landlord’s insurer. Its examples of works where this would apply included “structural movement”.

Complaints policy

The landlord operated a two stage complaint process. It said the landlord would aim to respond with 10 working days at both stages. It explained that if the complaint was complex and likely to need longer, the reviewing manager at stage two would agree a realistic timescale with the resident.

Compensation policy

The landlord’s compensation policy included a section about ‘discretionary compensation’. It explained that the amount awarded would depend on the circumstances of the case. It said any award would usually be for the resident’s time and trouble in bringing the complaint, or for any distress or inconvenience they experienced.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records showed that it emailed the resident on 27 January 2022, to arrange an inspection appointment for his property. It is unclear from the evidence available what prompted this. The inspection record notes included an instruction for a crack above the front door to be surveyed.
The landlord’s repairs team completed the inspection of the resident’s property on 2 February 2022. The inspection record noted that there was a step crack, that looked like it may have been caused when works were carried out above the front door. It suggested the way to repair this was to fit ‘Helibars’ (stainless steel reinforcing bars for masonry repairs). It said the works were to be sent to a subcontractor to inspect and provide a quotation.
The landlord completed a further inspection of the resident’s property on 15 March 2022. The resultant report detailed findings regarding the crack above the front door, the draught around the front door, and damp in the bathroom. The findings were as follows:
1. Monitors should be fitted across the existing crack, and left in place for at least eight weeks to establish if there was any movement.
2. Boards across the rafters adjacent to the gable end in the roof space should be removed, and photographic evidence of the inner parts of the roof should be obtained.
3. Spray foam should be used as an interim measure to draughtproof the door, and a full survey of the door should be carried out once works to the structural crack were completed.
4. The bathroom extractor fan, window and radiator were all confirmed to be in working order. It recommended the resident fit a three sided shower curtain to reduce the likelihood of low level dampness.
5. The landlord’s contractor had been emailed and asked to confirm they would complete all of the above, with the exception of the resident’s shower curtain.
The contractor provided the landlord a quotation for works to the resident’s property on 29 March 2022. The quotation was for the supply and erection of scaffold, and the supply and fitting of ‘Helibars’.
The contractor resent the quotation to the landlord on 25 April 2022.
The landlord’s internal emails on 28 April 2022 noted that the work details and quotation for the resident’s property had been sent to its insurer.
The landlord’s internal emails on 29 April 2022 showed that its surveyor had noted that the contractor’s quotation did not meet the requirements of the schedule of works. It stated that it would now be prudent for a structural engineer to survey the crack and make recommendations via a structural report. It instructed that no jobs were to be raised, but that this information should be sent to the contractor to action.
The landlord emailed the contractor on 4 May 2022, and asked it to engage a structural engineer to survey the resident’s property and complete a structural report.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 May 2022. It advised that a building surveyor loss adjuster (LA) from the landlord’s insurer would be attending the resident’s property the following day. The resident called the landlord in response and a time for the LA to attend on 6 May 2022 was agreed.
The landlord emailed its insurer’s LA on 12 May 2022. It asked for an update on the resident’s property, including his findings from his attendance. The LA replied the same day explaining he was awaiting further information from the insurer, but he should be in a position to advise shortly.
The resident’s complaint was submitted via the landlord’s online web form on 12 May 2022. The key points were as follows:
1. His property had a huge crack from the roof to the bottom of the front door step, and a crack from his bedroom window at the front of the property.
2. Four surveyors had attended his property but they were not structural engineers and so could not answer whether the property was safe. They had just taken photographs and gone again.
3. He asked that a structural engineer attend the property, and that the problems be fixed. He noted the cracks were making it expensive for him to heat the property.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response was dated 12 May 2022, but a technical issue meant that it was not sent until sent 19 May 2022. It referred to what had been discussed with the resident during a telephone conversation. The key points were as follows:
1. It said its repairs team had completed an inspection of the property in February 2022, but was unable to complete the works in March 2022 so had passed the works to its current contractor.
2. It said its current contractor had provided a quotation for works, but that due to the cost quoted it had been passed to one of the landlord’s surveyors to further investigate.
3. The landlord had also referred the structural concern with the cracking in the brickwork to its insurer, who had assigned it to the LA.
4. The LA completed an inspection of the resident’s property on 6 May 2022, and the landlord expected to receive its report and findings shortly. It apologised for the delay in arranging for the LA to attend.
5. It assured the resident that if there was any immediate danger from the property, the LA would have raised it.
6. It explained it had been experiencing delays with its previous repairs contractor, and so had arranged a second inspection by its current contractor.
7. It acknowledged that the findings of its first inspection should have immediately been sent to one of its surveyors, and referred to its insurer.
8. It said it believed the error had occurred as the landlord had been in the process of changing its repairs service. It advised it had now completed this change, which would allow for improvements and the closer monitoring of the service.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 May 2022. He said that he had not had a response to his complaint, and so would be moving it to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process.
The landlord emailed a response to the resident on 24 May 2022. It apologised that a technical issue had delayed it sending its stage one complaint response, but that it had sent it on 19 May 2022. It asked the resident to confirm he had received it.
The resident replied to the landlord on 25 May 2022. He repeated his complaint that the surveyors had only taken photographs, and his expectation that a structural engineer attend his property. He said that the landlord had had plenty of time to arrange a structural engineer, so he had moved his complaint to stage two.
The landlord emailed the LA again on 26 May 2022 and 1 June 2022, chasing when it would receive the report of his inspection of the resident’s property on 6 May 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 June 2022. It advised that his comments received 25 May 2022 had been added to his open complaint file. It apologised again for the technical issue that had delayed it sending its stage one complaint response. It asked again if the resident would confirm whether he had received it.
The LA emailed the landlord on 6 June 2022. He said that the resident had advised that him that he had first noticed the damage to the property around 2002. He advised that as this was prior to the start of the insurance policy, the landlord’s current insurer was unable to give further consideration to the matter.
The landlord replied to the LA on 7 June 2022. It said it had reviewed its repairs records for the resident’s property going back to 1998, and that there was nothing related to the current issues.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 June 2022. The key points were as follows:
1. The landlord had contacted this Service for advice, and had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two of its process. The stage two complaint investigation could take up to 20 working days to complete, but it noted the resident’s concerns over the safety of his property.
2. As such, it would arrange for a structural engineer to attend his property as soon as possible. This would be done separately from either the insurance process or its stage two complaint investigation process, to avoid any delay.
The landlord called the resident to discuss his stage two complaint on 9 June 2022. The landlord emailed the resident later the same day with a summary of the discussion. The key points were as follows:
1. The resident had said he was unhappy for the following reasons:
  1. The cracking at his property had gone on for too long, and the landlord had not sent people with the right skills to progress it.
  2. The resident’s quality of life was being affected as he was worried, and the property was costing more to heat because of the cracks.
2. The landlord had contacted the structural engineers that it used, but they had advised it would be four or five weeks before they could attend.
3. As the resident was unhappy with this, it had been agreed the resident would find his own structural engineer which the landlord would pay for once it had carried out some checks.
4. The landlord would contact the resident the following week, but provided a direct contact telephone number if he had any questions in the meantime.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 June 2022. It enquired how he was getting on finding an engineer. The landlord referred to the resident’s concerns about fuel bills. It suggested it could get its money advice team to contact him to provide support and help him apply for discretionary funds.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 and 20 June 2022 to advise he had found a structural engineer.
The landlord emailed the resident its stage two complaint response letter on 23 June 2022. The covering email said it would contact him again after 29 June 2022 to agree the next steps. The key points of the complaint response letter were as follows:
1. The landlord’s contractors had attended his property in February and March 2022, and this was followed up by the landlord’s surveyor, who arranged a further inspection by its insurer.
2. The landlord would normally only arrange for a structural engineer to attend if its insurer recommended it, but it understood the resident’s concerns and so had agreed to arrange one.
3. The resident had been unhappy that the landlord’s structural engineer could not attend for a few weeks, and so the landlord had agreed to let the resident find his own, and to cover the cost. A structural engineer was due to attend 29 June 2022.
4. The landlord had reviewed its stage one complaint investigation and response. It found that it had explained the delays and multiple surveys, and offered reassurance. However, it accepted it had not recognised how frustrating and concerning this had been for the resident.
5. It offered the resident £100 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for the failure to provide a timely surveying service.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience.
6. The landlord referred the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 June 2022. He advised he would await the outcome of the structural engineer’s visit before accepting any compensation offer.

Summary of events after the landlord complaint process

The resident emailed the landlord 12 July 2022. He said he had tried to get a copy of the structural engineer report, but had been told he could not have it until the invoice had been paid. The resident emailed the landlord again later the same day. He said that as the landlord had had plenty of time but still not responded, he was moving his complaint to stage three.
The landlord replied to the resident’s email the same day. It assured the resident that the structural engineer invoice was being paid. It advised it did not have a third stage to its complaint process. It repeated its advice that the resident’s next stage would be with this Service.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 July 2022, and advised it had received the structural engineer report. The landlord called the resident to discuss the report on 14 July 2022. The landlord emailed the resident later the same day with a summary of what was discussed. The key points were as follows:
1. The landlord would get a specification and quotations for the works recommended in the structural engineer report, appoint a contractor, and agree a start date.
2. The resident would need to move out of the property while the works were completed, but had stated his preference to stay at his current property on a permanent basis.
3. As such, the landlord would discuss and arrange temporary accommodation for the resident for the duration of the works.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 July 2022 to advise it had instructed a surveying firm to put together a specification of works for his property. It advised this would take a few weeks and that it would keep him updated. The resident replied the same day expressing his confusion with this, as four surveyors had already completed reports.
The landlord replied to the resident’s email on 25 July 2022. It said it was sorry for the confusion and agreed with the resident that there had been too many visits made initially to his property. It explained that it was in recognition of this that it had offered him £100 compensation. It said it was not yet able to advise an overall timeframe for the works, but it was expecting a proposal on the specification of works that week. It said it would continue to keep the resident updated.
The resident brought the matter to this Service in August 2022, and provided a further update in February 2023. He said that the landlord had advised him that it would not now be carrying out the works to his property due to the cost. He said that the landlord now intended arranging a ‘priority move’ for him to another property.
The resident contacted this Service several times during March 2023. He expressed his ongoing safety concerns with the property, and his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his ‘priority move’. This Service explained to the resident that the landlord’s recent handling of his ‘priority move’ would not be assessed as part of this investigation, as it had not been investigated via the landlord’s complaint process. This Service suggested he may wish to raise a further complaint with the landlord concerning that specific matter.
The landlord provided an update to this Service on 29 March 2023, confirming the resident had raised a new complaint about its handling of the decant. The landlord said it was aiming to arrange the resident’s move by the end of April 2023. It said it had been providing fuel vouchers to the resident as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord emphasised that no safety risks were highlighted in the structural engineer’s report, and provided evidence of its own building safety manager’s inspection on 15 March 2023 confirming the same.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s complaint response to the resident accepted there had been service failings and delays, and offered compensation. In reaching a decision in these circumstances, the Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord has acted reasonably, and whether the redress offered is appropriate and proportionate to the failures identified. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s actions and offer of redress were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, Put things right and Learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The need for repairs to address the cracks in the resident’s property was identified at the landlord’s inspection on 2 February 2022. There is no evidence of any progress being made towards this until the landlord completed a second inspection seven weeks later on 15 March 2022. Whilst the landlord’s repairs policy did not specify timeframes for ‘appointed repairs’, it did refer to them being booked for a mutually convenient time which this evidently was not. This was therefore not reasonable.
Following this, a quotation for the works identified was sent to the landlord by its contractor on 29 March 2022. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to have taken steps to assess the quotation in a timely manner, and refer the matter to its insurer if it considered it appropriate. There is no evidence that the landlord did this until the contractor resent the quotation more than four weeks later, on 25 April 2022. The resident had made clear the sleepless nights and anxiety he and his daughter were experiencing as a result of their safety fears for the property. It was not reasonable that the resident’s distress was prolonged for an additional 12 weeks by the landlord’s delays.
It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the matter to its insurer, in line with its repairs policy concerning property structural issues, and reasonable for the insurer’s LA to attend on 6 May 2022. However, the Ombudsman recognises the increased frustration and anxiety the resident has described himself as feeling, at what understandably appeared to him as multiple inspections without meaningful progress.
It was appropriate that the landlord’s stage one complaint response accepted and apologised for the delays and multiple inspections, and offered assurances about the safety of the property. It was also appropriate that the landlord explained what had gone wrong to cause the delays, and the changes it had made to its repairs service. This demonstrated the landlord had learnt from the resident’s complaint and had implemented changes, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
It was appropriate for the landlord to maintain contact with the resident through the latter part of May, and early June 2022. It was also appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s safety anxieties, and his requests that the landlord engage a structural engineer. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident on 7 June 2022 that it would arrange a structural engineer ahead of its stage two complaint review. However, the landlord’s surveyor had first asked for its contractor to engage a structural engineer on 4 May 2022. It was unreasonable that there is no evidence that the landlord followed this up with its contractor and progressed the engagement of a structural engineer at that stage.
It was appropriate for the landlord’s senior manager to call the resident to discuss his complaint, and email him with a summary of that discussion, on 9 June 2022. It was unfortunate that the structural engineers used by the landlord were unable to attend for a few weeks. To resolve this, the landlord agreed that the resident could find his own structural engineer at the landlord’s cost. The senior manager gave the resident her direct contact telephone number if he wished to discuss the matter further. Its actions in this regard were reasonable and resolution-focused.
The landlord understood that the resident was eager to get the assurance of a structural engineer’s opinion, and that he believed the issues with his property were increasing his heating costs. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to email the resident on 13 June 2022 to check how he was getting on with finding a structural engineer and to offer the support of its money advice team.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response letter was sent 23 June 2022 and confirmed a structural engineer was attending at the landlord’s cost on 29 June 2022. It upheld the findings of its stage one response but appropriately accepted it had failed to recognise how frustrating and concerning this had been for the resident.
The landlord accepted that following its inspection of the resident’s property on 2 February 2022, the matter should have been sent straight to one of its surveyors and referred to its insurer. The landlord apologised that it had failed to do this, and offered the resident compensation in its complaint response.
The landlord’s compensation policy did not provide guidance on appropriate award levels, but said that discretionary payments would usually be for the resident’s time and trouble in bringing the complaint, or for any distress or inconvenience experienced. The resident had described the impact on his living conditions, the significant worry and frustration the landlord’s delays had caused him, and that he had to escalate his complaint before this was recognised.
Given the delays extended over several months, despite the resident’s health and safety concerns, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the compensation the landlord offered was not proportionate to the service failings identified and did not recognise the extent of their impact. Compensation awarded by the landlord was within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for a service failure of a short duration that did not have a significant impact. This was therefore insufficient redress given the circumstances of this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint concerning structural issues with his property.

Reasons

The landlord accepted and apologised for the service failings that led to the complaint. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord did in the main act in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. However, the offer of £100 compensation was insufficient and disproportionate to the delay, distress and inconvenience its service failings caused to the resident.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pays the resident further compensation of £250 (£350 in total, including the £100 already offered) for the distress, time and trouble caused to him by the identified service failures.
The landlord should confirm compliance with this order to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.