Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202218030)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218030

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

28 September 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 handling of:
1. subsidence at the property;
2. the resident’s complaint, including the level of compensation offered.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and moved to the property, a semi-detached corner house, in 1999. She lives with her husband, who is disabled and uses a wheelchair.
The tenancy agreement sets out the repair responsibilities of the landlord and tenant. The landlord is responsible for “keep[ing] in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling” and for carrying out repairs within a reasonable time. The tenant’s responsibilities include allowing the landlord and its agents access to the premises to carry out work or inspect the state of repair.
The landlord’s repairs policy again confirms that it is responsible for “maintaining in a good state of repair the building and its components”, including its structure (roofs, walls, doors, windows, gutters and drains). The policy divides repairs into 5 categories, with response times ranging from 4 hours to 60 working days. However, the landlord’s repair handbook states that response times range from 2 hours to 20 working days.
The landlord’s emergency and major works decant policy applies to “major, planned and emergency works which cannot be undertaken with the tenant in situ”. It states that, in such cases, 2 offers of decant accommodation will be offered. Tenants moving as a decant are assumed to be moving on a permanent basis, although they have the option of returning to their original property following repair works if they choose (unless it is permanently uninhabitable). Should a tenant agree to remain in their property while repairs are carried out, and it is safe to do so, the landlord will compensate them for “inconvenience and other impacts of the works programme” according to its listed rates for disturbance payments. Where tenants are living in a property with more bedrooms than they require at the time of the decant, they will be offered a decant property with the number of bedrooms for their needs.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its corporate complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will then respond to housing management and repairs complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. At stage 1, it may extend its response time by a further 10 working days; this will be agreed with the complainant prior to the extension being applied.
The landlord’s repairs complaints compensation policy outlines its approach to the award of financial compensation where a resident has experienced a delay or incurred additional costs due to service failure. This includes temporary loss of amenities (within the landlord’s control), inability to use part of the property, delays in delivering services, poor complaint handling, and circumstances where the landlord or its contractors have failed to provide advice or communicate properly. Claims for financial compensation consider the severity of the time, trouble and inconvenience suffered; recognition of any failure to follow policies and procedures; consideration of vulnerability within the household; time taken to resolve the issue; and any non-financial remedies. Non-financial remedies used by the landlord include making good damage that has been caused by its repair works, apologising, and explaining why things went wrong.
The compensation policy sets out the landlord’s tariff for time, trouble and inconvenience, with awards ranging from £50 (for ‘minor failure’) to over £700 (for ‘extensive disruption’). Similarly, compensation for complaint handling failure ranges from £25 to £100. In addition, repair-specific compensation may be paid for room loss, with a percentage of weekly rent being due (up to a maximum of 50%) depending on the room(s) for which usage has been fully or partially lost.

Summary of events

The property was affected by a leak in August 2017 and subsequently suffered subsidence. The Ombudsman determined a previous complaint by the resident, relating to the landlord’s initial handling of the subsidence and her associated complaint, in February 2020 (reference 201902357). Findings of maladministration were made in respect of both the substantive repair issue and complaint handling. The landlord was ordered to pay the resident compensation; complete a drainage survey; carry out repairs; and make good all damaged decorations, including flooring, once the repairs were complete.
On 27 March 2020 the landlord’s contractor excavated 2 trial pits and completed borehole testing at the property. It produced a site investigation report showing the composition of the soil at both locations to a depth of 400mm.
The landlord’s records state that drain works were completed on 7 April 2020. Following an apparent gap of 8 months, the landlord’s contractor confirmed a start date for further works at the property on 4 December 2020. The works began in February 2021. On 15 June 2021 the landlord documented that outstanding works included breaking out and recasting the front pathway; carrying out heli-bar repairs in 3 locations to the left-hand flank wall; installing a new kitchen; and fitting a downpipe to the guttering. Emails sent to the landlord by the resident in July 2021 referred to her concerns about reappearing cracks and the landlord’s choice of contractor.
On 15 February 2022 the landlord’s building control service completed a structural inspection of the property. The resulting report, produced on 22 February 2022, described hairline cracks observed on both floors of the property and a diagonal crack on the exterior back wall. It noted that the exterior crack indicated foundation settlement of the side entrance wall, and was not a newly formed crack but a pre-existing one. The report stated that the property was one of a number of cases in the area where house foundation settlement was caused by water ingress into (or water extraction from) the soil of shallow foundations. In the resident’s case, an inaccessible drain on site had been exposed and the defects found were repaired. Provided all sources of water ingress had been stopped, the ground would regain strength and stabilise the foundations. Chemical underpinning had been carried out to the front and side entrance walls to safeguard these walls against soil volumetric changes caused by the roots of a nearby tree; the underpinning was not recommended in connection with water ingress. The report concluded that the property was “settling rather than getting worse”, and recommended that the hairline cracks were infilled and made good. It clarified that this was not to “wipe away the evidence”, but for the purpose of monitoring of movement, as further movement would reopen the cracks. It proposed a further inspection in 6 months’ time.
In July 2022 a stage 2 complaint was logged by the landlord, then withdrawn, following an enquiry by the resident’s local councillor regarding her case. The landlord apologised for its handling of the resident’s communications and offered her the option of raising a stage 1 complaint. However, this was not progressed at the time.
On 12 August 2022 a meeting took place between the landlord, its contractor, and the resident. The resident’s record of this meeting states that all parties agreed the outstanding repairs would be completed as soon as possible. The landlord said it would re-level the living room floor and replace the failed flooring with new, employing professional solid wood floor layers to carry out the installation. The contractor agreed to put right a problem with the gate/fence, which it subsequently did, and the resident and landlord reached an agreement regarding compensation following the meeting. A flooring contractor visited the property to take measurements on 24 August 2022, although there was some confusion between the contractor and resident as to the purpose of the visit. Further discussion regarding the flooring solution and associated roles/costs took place between the resident and landlord in August and September 2022.
On 14 October 2022 the landlord’s building control service produced a further report following a structural inspection of the property completed in August 2022. As with the previous report in February 2022, this described the cracks observed inside and outside the property. It noted that, while some cracks were the same, overall the cracks were fewer in number and redecoration had visibly removed some of them. With regard to the cracks that remained visible, some of these had not been infilled and smoothened out as previously recommended, but simply painted over, which resulted in them reappearing because the paint did not successfully infill the gaps (rather than because of structural movement). The report concluded that the property was continuing to settle, and again recommended that the hairline cracks should be infilled and made good. The landlord subsequently completed a carbide test on 19 October 2022.
During emails exchanged between the resident and landlord in October and November 2022, the resident expressed her concerns regarding the landlord’s proposal to install crack monitor gauges in the property. She felt this was “too little too late” and refused the installation, telling the landlord that if it brought the crack monitors to the property she would regard this as a “bullying tactic”. The resident then began a picture diary to document the conditions she and her husband were living in, which she sent to the landlord and its councillors. On 8 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to her recent emails. It explained that, while she clearly believed the property was experiencing ongoing structural movement, it currently had no evidence to support this and wished to monitor the situation by installing crack monitors. It apologised that it had previously not handled the issues well, with some repairs taking longer than planned, and for the impact on the resident’s family. It also addressed a number of matters raised by the resident, including its historic failures, its anticipated timescale for completing outstanding repairs, the resident’s feelings of being pressured, her previous refusal of a decant, and its intention to arrange an independent structural survey by an expert agreed with the resident.
On 12 November 2022 the Ombudsman assisted the resident in making a complaint to the landlord about its handling of subsidence at the property. This stated the resident’s belief that, since the previous determination by this Service, some repairs had not been completed and others had been completed to a poor standard. It also noted that further cracks were now appearing in the property, and the Ombudsman asked the landlord to arrange an independent inspection of the property to assess the standard of repairs and determine the cause of the new cracking. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 November 2022 and said it would provide a written response by 2 December 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 December 2022, stating that:
1. Its records showed that the resident had agreed for it to visit her with its contractor on 7 December 2022 in order to address her concerns about the dining room floor and schedule the following remaining works:
  1. Adjust the new plaster on one of the dining room walls and fit a new skirting board;
  2. Redecorate the dining room;
  3. Repair the landing ceiling and redecorate the hall, stairs and landing;
  4. Fill and touch in the bedroom ceiling where a screw had come through;
  5. Undertake a final internal clean;
  6. Replace any cracked paving slabs.
2. Its position was that the cracks were the result of the property settling, and there was no evidence to support ongoing subsidence.
3. It wanted to monitor the situation by installing crack monitor gauges to record any movement.
4. When the remaining works to the dining room, hall, stairs, landing and paving were completed, it would commission and pay for an independent structural survey to inspect its works and give an opinion on recent cracks. The surveyor would be “mutually selected” by itself and the resident.
The resident replied to the landlord the same day, stating that she was not satisfied with the stage 1 response “and wish to proceed to stage 2 if I have to”. She told the landlord that its response was not factually correct, and said she would contact it again the following week with a more detailed response. In her email she listed 15 questions to which she sought answers.
The landlord logged an escalation request on 5 December 2022 but did not immediately inform the resident of this, with its internal correspondence on 6 December 2022 noting that she had not actually requested for her complaint to be raised to stage 2. However, a further email sent by the resident to the landlord later the same day (6 December 2022) referred to “my email requesting my complaint is taken to stage 2” on 2 December 2022. The resident provided a list of incomplete repairs and other repair issues for each room of the property. Many of these related to reappearing cracks and issues with draughty windows/doors and flooring. She also stated in her email that:
1. She believed the landlord had given her conflicting advice and information over the years and dismissed her concerns. She felt it had simply guessed what works and tests needed to be carried out.
2. She described its attitude towards her and her husband as “dismissive, belittling, arrogant, deliberate and malicious”.
3. The landlord had “turned a blind eye” or tried to hide cracks and “pretend all is fine”, but she believed the property was still moving. She felt the back of the property needed underpinning, but the landlord had refused, claiming there was a lack of evidence of continued subsidence.
4. It had also failed to honour an agreement she made with its head of housing regarding replacement of her living room floor.
5. She believed its contractor was untrustworthy and had failed to follow health and safety regulations, failed to adhere to Covid-19 guidance, made mistakes, and had bad policies, poor leadership and poor management of works.
6. She would like an independent inspection of works carried out since 2019, and an independent structural survey.
7. She provided excerpts from previous emails to support some of her points.
On 7 December 2022 the landlord and its contractor completed a joint inspection of the property. The landlord then acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 13 December 2022, and apologised for its delay in doing so. It advised that its resident experience team would provide a stage 2 complaint response by 9 January 2023. On 9 January 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it was unable to meet the previously agreed timescale for its stage 2 response, as annual leave and holiday closure had impacted on its ability to liaise with the relevant officers. It said it now aimed to respond by 18 January 2023.
On 11 January 2023 the landlord reviewed the 15 questions asked by the resident and decided that 3 of them would be best managed as a subject access request (SAR). It forwarded the relevant questions to its SAR team and informed the resident of this the following day. On 17 January 2023 the landlord’s SAR team told the resident that it had searched its records and did not hold the information she requested. It explained her right of appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The resident was unhappy with this as she had not made a SAR, and said she wished the landlord to address all 15 questions as part of its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 January 2023, stating that:
1. It apologised for its delay in responding.
2. Outstanding repairs were on hold at the resident’s request, pending an independent structural review and report.
3. It had reviewed the resident’s case, its stage 1 outcome, and details of her current concerns. It noted that she had made contact with it in relation to the matters raised, including a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, member enquiries, complaints, and previous contact with this Service.
4. It was sorry the resident was dissatisfied with its handling of the matter. It sympathised with her reports that she and her husband had suffered distress. It also appreciated the difficulty in managing her home and the issues raised.
5. In response to the resident’s questions:
  1. It was unable to say how many cracks were currently in her home, but it was aware of them. Monitoring of the cracks was ongoing as advised by its structural engineer, who carried out inspections and provided reports in December 2018, February 2022 and August 2022.
  2. It had responded to her question regarding which rooms contained cracks as a SAR earlier in the month.
  3. It had also responded to her question regarding how many times cracks had reappeared in the same place as a SAR.
  4. Its structural engineer and contracts manager had taken photos to document the cracks between October 2021 and December 2022.
  5. Works had been undertaken by its contractor, which was required to comply with current requirements and legislation relating to health and safety at work. It had offered the resident a decant while the works were carried out, but she refused this due to the needs of her family.
  6. As far as it was aware, it had followed building regulations.
  7. Since 2017, the property had been inspected by a chartered structural engineer on 3 occasions in order to ascertain where the structural issues were originating from.
  8. To address these issues, it had followed the recommendations of its structural engineer; repaired or replaced defective drains; and underpinned the front and side walls to the property using chemical injection. The underpins were to safeguard the foundations against any further effects of the roots of a nearby tree.
  9. It was unable to comment on whether it had placed the resident and her family in danger through negligence. While it hoped that was not how she felt, she would need to source her own independent advice on this.
  10. All works had been carried out by its principal contractor, which used various subcontractors. Post inspections should take place after works had been completed to identify any issues and confirm that the works had been completed to a satisfactory standard and the property left in a clean state.
  11. It was unable to comment on individual dates when works were completed. It acknowledged that, while post inspections should take place, it was not always the case that works had been completed to a satisfactory standard or that the property had been left in a clean state. It apologised for this. Going forward, its contracts manager would be the resident’s single point of contact (SPOC), as this would help to ensure that comprehensive post inspections were completed.
  12. Its SAR response had addressed the resident’s question about the number of days she had been forced to remain in her home in order to allow it access.
  13. It was unable to comment on whether it had breached the resident’s human rights by denying her the right to live a normal life, and advised her to seek independent advice.
6. In response to the resident’s list of outstanding repairs/issues by room:
  1. While the floor in the kitchen was not perfectly level, it was within acceptable tolerance. The back door would be further inspected. There was currently no room to reinstate the kitchen radiator as there were units on every wall, so one would need to be removed.
  1. It had previously agreed to provide the materials to lay a new living room floor, which its contractors already had in storage. It would pay for removal of the existing flooring, levelling of the subfloor and laying of the new flooring. The windows, door, door frame and moving threshold would be further inspected.
  2. It would arrange repairs to the front door and would further inspect the flooring and windows in the hallway.
  3. The dining room wall would be boarded and skimmed and the whole room would be redecorated. The MDF skirting would be renewed with timber and an issue with the plugs would be resolved when the wall was boarded. A double plug that was removed would be reinstated if possible. The resident would be compensated for replacement of the floor and threshold.
  4. Decoration and repairs to the landing/staircase ceiling were yet to be completed. It would further inspect the windows in these rooms and in the toilet/bathroom.
  5. Its contract manager advised that they had not taken any photos in the resident’s bedroom without her permission.
  6. It understood there had been no further cracks in the porch since repairs were carried out, and the gutters and path appeared satisfactory. It would arrange for damaged paving to be repaired.
  7. Monitoring of cracks throughout the property was ongoing, as advised by its structural engineer. A mutually agreed and suitably qualified structural engineer would be carrying out an independent inspection and producing a report.
7. In September 2022, it had awarded the resident £5,000 for stress, inconvenience and delays. The ongoing issues continued to be monitored at a senior level, and once the works were completed it would review the level of compensation awarded.
8. It was working with its inter-departmental teams and contractors to communicate more effectively and provide a more coordinated approach to resident feedback on repairs and appointments. It hoped that this collaborative work would prevent a repeat of the resident’s experience and improve its service. Action it was now taking included:
  1. It discussed and reviewed complex cases at senior level, and implemented new processes as a result.
  1. It held regular meetings with contractors where complex cases “have not gone as well as we would have liked”. It discussed relevant cases in detail and put preventative steps in place.
  2. It used monitoring reports to capture cases in the early stages, in order to prevent delays and poor communication with residents.
  3. It trained its staff in managing residents’ expectations.
9. It tried to deliver a good experience for its residents and it was sorry that the resident was dissatisfied with the service she had received. While her complaint was being closed, the outstanding repairs were being overseen by a SPOC and the issues were being managed at a senior level in order to ensure subsequent works were carried out to the required standard.
10. Due to the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction, its director of housing would like to visit her to discuss her experience and next steps. It proposed a meeting on 25 January 2023, and asked the resident to confirm if this was convenient.
On 23 January 2023 the resident told the landlord its stage 2 response was unacceptable to her because it contained inaccuracies, failed to answer her questions, and was misleading. She also noted that the complaint reference number had been changed, causing confusion. She said she would be referring her complaint to this Service, but she was happy to meet with the landlord’s director of housing.

Post complaint

The landlord’s director of housing was unable to attend the visit planned for 25 January 2023 due to being unwell, and a rearranged appointment on 1 February 2023 was also cancelled at short notice by the landlord. The resident declined a further appointment that was offered on 8 February 2023, as the landlord said its director of housing would not be in attendance.
On 14 March 2023 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with its recent attempt to address a draught by fitting a draught excluder to her front door frame, as the excluder blocked part of the lock. This had caused her injury when trying to operate the door and prevented her husband from opening the door from the outside, which now required both hands. The resident said she would make arrangements to remove the excluder on 18 March 2023 if the landlord did not fix the issue by 16 March 2023. The landlord did not respond to the resident regarding this, and she informed it on 20 March 2023 that she had had the draught excluder removed.
On 24 July 2023 the landlord’s assistant director of repairs met with the resident. Their email following the meeting stated that they were sorry to hear of the issues she had had in her home and were looking forward to working with her to conclude these issues and identify a way forward. They confirmed their agreement to provide the resident with details of the independent chartered engineer the landlord proposed to use, include the scope of works, and agree an appointment time. They also addressed concerns raised by the resident regarding current cracks, door and gate issues, a check of the drains, the plasterboard ceiling, repairs to the stairs, decoration and flooring. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 and 27 July 2023 to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s visit and email, saying she had found the visit “distressing and stressful” and taking issue with a number of points addressed. She subsequently informed this Service that she lacked faith in the landlord’s explanation of the reasons for the cracking.
The resident remains dissatisfied that:
1. The landlord has not (in her opinion) identified the cause of the subsidence, monitored the situation effectively, resolved the issue, or completed outstanding repairs.
2. Walls and ceilings in the property have been patched up rather than replaced, which she is concerned has made them heavy and at risk of collapse.
3. The interior and exterior of her property have been left in a messy condition.
4. The landlord has delayed replacement of her damaged flooring.
5. The decant she was offered was not “a serious offer” or suitable for her needs.
6. The landlord has not answered all of her questions, such as whether a risk assessment was carried out.
7. The landlord caused confusion by changing her complaint reference number.
8. The ongoing issues are affecting her household’s quality of life.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Since the Ombudsman has previously determined a complaint by the resident in relation to the landlord’s earlier handling of the same issue, it is important to be clear regarding the parameters of this investigation. As well as clarifying what aspects the current investigation will consider, this will also help to set boundaries for any future investigations. Therefore, this investigation will examine events that occurred between February 2020 and July 2023, with particular focus on the complaint made by the resident in November 2022 and responded to by the landlord in January 2023. Matters previously raised by the resident but not addressed in the complaint, such as the landlord’s response to her historic reports of a collapsed drain and its original decision to underpin certain parts of the property, fall outside the scope of this investigation. However, the investigation will consider whether the landlord responded reasonably and appropriately to the resident’s continued concerns about these matters.

Subsidence at the property

Decant

The Ombudsman understands that the resident declined the landlord’s offer of a temporary decant to a 3-bedroom property while repairs were completed at her property. The landlord has informed this Service that the resident declined this property because it had fewer bedrooms, and also because she was concerned about surrendering her tenancy. It is unclear whether any other properties were offered. The Ombudsman previously determined a complaint (reference 202002333) about whether the resident’s current property should be classed as having 3 or 4 bedrooms, as one of the rooms classed by the landlord as a bedroom is downstairs and used by her as a dining room. The outcome of this investigation was that it was reasonable for the landlord to class the property as having 4 bedrooms, in accordance with the tenancy agreement and sign up forms.
The landlord’s decant policy states that, in cases suitable for a decant, 2 offers of accommodation will be made. It also states that decanted tenants are assumed to be moving on a permanent basis, and that where tenants are living in a property with more bedrooms than they require, they will be offered a decant property with “the number of bedrooms for their needs”. Given that the resident’s household at the time of the proposed decant was comprised of 2 people, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer a 3-bedroom property. It is accepted that any offers made would be restricted to the landlord’s available housing stock at the time.
The Ombudsman has not had the opportunity to examine any evidence of the landlord’s attempts to allay the resident’s concerns about surrendering her tenancy. While the decant was not the focus of the resident’s complaint, it follows that if the landlord was able to provide suitable alternative accommodation on terms that she felt able to accept, the distress caused to her household as a result of disruptive repairs and partially usable rooms would be significantly reduced. In the interests of finding a mutually agreeable solution while repair works are ongoing, an order has therefore been made for the possibility of a decant to be revisited (although the resident is under no obligation to accept this).

Decision making

The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident believes the property continues to be subject to subsidence related movement, as a result of the physical effects she has witnessed while living there (such as new or reappearing cracks). Her feelings of being ignored or dismissed have no doubt caused her considerable frustration and upset. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to act in accordance with the recommendations of its building control service, following inspections in February and August 2022. It was also reasonable, in light of the resident’s concerns, for the landlord to propose the installation of crack monitors. Since it was required to make evidence-based decisions, use of crack monitors would allow it to generate the necessary evidence of movement (if present). The resident’s interpretation of this proposal as a “bullying tactic” is evidence of the relationship breakdown that has occurred, and it is important that efforts are made to rebuild this relationship in order for a resolution to be reached.
The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s explanations relating to underpinning of the property, including its decision not to carry out further underpinning at the resident’s request, were sufficient in view of the information available to it. However, its communication could sometimes have been better: for example, at the time of making her complaint the resident was under the impression that the landlord had not done anything to monitor cracking at the property and had been trying to “hide” previous cracks, whereas in fact it had been acting on its building control service’s recommendations to refill the cracks so that any reappearance would be noticeable. Though it is noted that the August 2022 building control report was shared with the resident, improved openness and transparency (outside the complaints process) would have enabled her to feel listened to and given her the opportunity to discuss and query decisions at the time they were made, rather than months later.

Timescales

While the landlord’s repairs policy states that its maximum timeframe for repairs is 60 days, it is generally accepted that complex repair issues such as subsidence may take a number of months or years to fully resolve. Such repairs are often characterised by investigative and diagnostic works, as well as periods of monitoring, in order to identify the root cause of the issue. Landlords may also be obliged to follow certain courses of action required by their insurers. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain good communication with residents; to keep under review whether it is reasonable and safe for a resident to remain in situ; and to ensure that the progress of repairs is not unreasonably delayed.
Though it may not be unusual for a subsidence issue to be ongoing 5 years after it began, there was a period between April 2020 and February 2021 when little or no progress appeared to be made. This may have been due to the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, although this is not documented. The information provided indicates that progress between June 2021 and August 2022, and between December 2022 and July 2023, was also slow. It further indicates that the landlord changed its position regarding when it would fund replacement of the resident’s living room floor and at what point it would carry out an independent structural survey – or, if its position did not change, its communication regarding these matters was inconsistent. While it is recognised that some works could not be carried out or were put on hold at the request of the resident, the overall communication issues and delays fell below the standard the Ombudsman would expect. It is also concerning that the landlord did not appear to respond swiftly or appropriately to the resident’s reports of a potentially dangerous front door repair. Taken together, these issues have resulted in a finding of maladministration.

Complaint handling and compensation

Complaint handling

The landlord’s decision to log and withdraw a stage 2 complaint in July 2022, following a councillor enquiry (and without having first logged a stage 1 complaint), caused understandable confusion to the resident. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its prompt apology and explanation for this error was sufficient.
When the landlord acknowledged the subsequent complaint that this Service assisted the resident in making in November 2022, this again caused some initial confusion to the resident. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s explanation in its acknowledgement email was clear. The resident later confirmed that she understood the circumstances of the complaint on re-reading the email, so no clarification was necessary. The landlord went on to respond to the stage 1 complaint within its stated timescale. The response was thorough and provided an appropriate summary of planned works. It stated the landlord’s position with regard to recent cracking, and given that the resident disagreed there was no ongoing subsidence, it was reasonable for it to reiterate its proposal to install crack monitor gauges. It was also appropriate for it to confirm its intention to carry out an independent structural survey, as requested by the Ombudsman. Given the brevity of the complaint, the stage 1 response was adequately detailed and constituted an acceptable response.
The landlord’s deliberation regarding whether to escalate the complaint to stage 2 following the resident’s email of 2 December 2022 was understandable, particularly in view of previous events involving a reported data protection breach. However, rather than logging a stage 2 request on 5 December 2022 and delaying in sending an acknowledgement email, the landlord should have contacted the resident to confirm her intentions. While her email of 6 December 2022 made her intentions clear, this resulted in a 5-day delay in acknowledging the escalation request. Though the delay was not significant and did not cause severe detriment to the resident, her contact with this Service on 9 December 2022 showed that it had caused her some concern.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it may extend its stage 1 response time by up to 10 working days, but does not refer to extensions at stage 2. The wording may be intended to refer to extensions at both stages, but this is unclear and would benefit from review. The policy also states that any extension will be agreed with the complainant prior to being applied. In the resident’s case, she was informed of the extension rather than asked to agree to it; she was also not made aware of the need for an extension until the date the stage 2 response was originally due. In addition, there is no reference in the landlord’s internal correspondence to “annual leave and holiday closure” being the reason for its delay in responding, with initial information from internal teams being requested by 23 December 2022. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord would have been aware of the likely impact of leave and closure around the Christmas period, and should have factored this into its target date. It should also have given advance notice of its need for an extension.
The landlord again failed to meet its revised target date of 18 January 2023, and did not contact the resident regarding this until the date of its eventual response (20 January 2023). The resident’s concern regarding the delay was once more obvious from her contact with this Service on 19 January 2023. While the information provided shows that the landlord was making efforts ‘behind the scenes’ to respond on time, the resident was not kept informed. This is an example of where good communication could have significantly improved the resident’s experience, as although a delay of 2 days may seem short, her feeling of being ignored and deprioritised had a far greater impact than the delay.
The stage 2 response was again detailed and contained an appropriate apology for the delay in responding. It addressed the 15 questions asked by the resident in her escalation request and the detailed list of repairs and issues in each room, although both sections were repetitive and at times came across as unsympathetic. The landlord’s rationale for responding to 3 of the resident’s questions as a SAR was unclear, particularly as this did not enable it to provide a more helpful response. Instead, it seemed to be used as a way of excluding these questions from the complaint response. Since the resident had pointed out that she did not make a SAR and wanted the landlord to respond to the questions as part of its stage 2 response, it would have been appropriate for the questions to have been addressed in the response, if only to state that the landlord did not hold the information. In fact, the information provided to this Service – held by the landlord at the time – would have allowed it to engage more meaningfully with some of the questions, even if it was unable to provide numeric answers. In asking the questions, the resident was seeking evidence that the landlord understood her situation, and the stage 2 response missed an opportunity to reassure her of this.
When the landlord informed the resident that she was unhappy with its stage 2 response, it told her it was sorry she remained dissatisfied. However, it was unable to arrange the meeting with its (then) director of housing that it promised, and it did not fully address her concerns until its assistant director offered a meeting 5 months later. By this time, the resident had reported suffering injury – and avoidable inconvenience to her disabled husband – as a result of an inadequate repair (discussed above). Given the continued and impactive nature of the issues at the property, it is concerning that the resident’s correspondence and reports were not followed up until after an information request had been received from this Service. It was also unsatisfactory that the resident’s preferences regarding the venue for this meeting, which were partly related to her husband’s disability, were disregarded without explanation.
Finally, the Ombudsman understands that there was some confusion regarding changed complaint reference numbers. This appears to have arisen from the different reference numbers used by the landlord and this Service in relation to current and previous complaints. While the issue was a straightforward one, it does not appear to have been discussed with or explained clearly to the resident at any point. This may have been due to a misunderstanding, as the landlord’s email to this Service on 5 July 2023 indicated that it still did not realise the source of the confusion. However, had it taken the time to understand the issue, it could have been quickly and easily addressed.
Overall, the landlord’s delay in acknowledging the escalation request, poor communication in relation to its delayed stage 2 response, delayed follow-up action, and lack of compensation in recognition of these aspects, have resulted in a finding of maladministration in relation to complaint handling.

Compensation

Given the circumstances and history of the case, it was reasonable (at the time) for the landlord to tell the resident it would review compensation once the repairs had been concluded. However, due to the timescales involved and the resident’s obvious frustration and distress, as well as actual costs incurred, an order has been made for some elements of the compensation to be paid in the near future. The landlord has also been ordered to review the total offer of compensation at a later date, when it has more information regarding the overall length of time the resident was denied full use of her property and the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of subsidence at the property;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, including the level of compensation offered.

Reasons

The landlord’s decision making in relation to the subsidence repairs was informed by the assessment of qualified staff. Its initial offer of a decant was also reasonable. However, it delayed in adequately progressing the repairs for periods of 10, 14 and 7 months, and its communication with the resident was sometimes poor. This resulted in her feeling misled, confused and ignored. It also caused her and her disabled husband prolonged distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was timely and appropriate. However, it delayed in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request and in informing her that it required more time to produce its stage 2 response. The stage 2 response was not provided within the extended timeframe, and the landlord’s stage 2 offer of a meeting with its director of housing was not honoured at the time. The resident’s reports that the complaint response did not resolve her concerns were not adequately addressed until 6 months later. The landlord’s decision not to offer further compensation until repairs had been completed did not take account of the resident’s circumstances and actual costs she had incurred.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its delays in carrying out repairs and poor communication.
2. Pay the resident £4,200 (in addition to any previous awards), comprising:
  1. £600 for its delays and poor communication in relation to repairs;
  2. £2,600 for her partial use of the property between September 2022 (when a previous award of compensation was made) and September 2023, calculated as approximately 30% of her rent over this period;
  3. £500 in contribution towards the actual costs she incurred as a result of the landlord’s action or inaction, including increased heating costs due to draughts and removal of the draught excluder, and the time and trouble she invested in pursuing her repairs and complaint;
  4. £300 for its complaint handling failures;
  5. £200 for the further distress and inconvenience caused to her.
3. Provide copies of all surveys, reports and test results relating to the property to the resident, if it has not already done so. This should include the building control inspection reports dated 22 February 2022 and 14 October 2022.
4. Conduct a risk assessment in relation to the safety of the property in its current condition and the resident’s continued habitation of it. This should take account of the particular needs of the resident and her husband, including any needs associated with her husband’s disability, as well as the temperature in the property during the winter months. It should also consider the presence of any hazards as defined in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
5. Make arrangements for an independent inspection of the property, using a suitably qualified specialist agreed with the resident (or separately covering the costs of the resident’s own inspection, at its discretion), if it has not already done so. A copy of the resulting specialist report should be shared with the resident. The landlord should then carry out works in accordance with the specialist’s recommendations. Timescales for the recommended works should be agreed with the resident, and should not be unreasonably delayed.
6. Inform the resident in writing of its anticipated timescale for installing replacement living room flooring in the property, in accordance with its previous agreement. The installation should not be delayed longer than necessary, but should not take place if the landlord believes (and can evidence its reasons for believing) that laying the flooring at an earlier stage could risk damage or inhibit further testing/monitoring. Its letter should include an explanation of any delays.
7. Meet with the resident (at a location of her choosing) to discuss and reconsider the possibility of a temporary decant until the repairs are completed. This should include exploration of any concerns relating to surrendering the tenancy and/or being unable to move back into the property, with written assurance to be provided where possible. If the resident is willing to consider a decant at this stage, a minimum of 2 suitable properties (with 3 or more bedrooms) should be offered as soon as reasonably practicable.
8. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.
The landlord is ordered to review its total offer of compensation, as stated in its stage 2 complaint response, once all repairs have been completed. It should take into account the length of time the resident was denied full use of her property, the distress and inconvenience caused, whether or not a decant took place, and the amount of compensation already awarded. It should inform this Service of its intentions regarding this within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord ensures its stated timescales for different categories of repair are consistent across its policies, handbooks and any other published material. It is further recommended that the landlord considers clarifying in any such policies/handbooks that complex repairs involving investigative/diagnostic works and periods of monitoring may take significantly longer to resolve, and stating its commitments (eg frequency of updates, provision of a single point of contact) in these circumstances.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews the wording of its corporate complaints policy relating to extensions at stages 1 and 2, and considers clarifying whether extensions may be required at stage 2.