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

Blackpool Council (202213281)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213281

Blackpool Council

31 January 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports and concerns about the letting condition of her former property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s former property was a house, and the tenancy commenced in June 2022. It is understood that the resident has at least 2 vulnerable children, including one with a disability.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports and concerns about the letting condition of her former property

  1. The resident’s former property had issues with movement in the years before she moved in, and this was monitored over a period of time. A 2017 structural survey noted that there had been no recent movement and the building had reached a state of equilibrium, but the movement was “very severe and noticeable both visually and in terms of slopes to the floors and door swings etc.” The survey made some recommendations in respect to lowering the level of paths at the front of the house and installing a drainage system. The landlord says these were done and to show this, supplies an October 2021 quote for some tarmac works that included dropping levels.
  2. The landlord carried out void inspections and in July 2021, noted that the property was ready for viewing but it was suspected that there was movement at the rear. It was requested for a structural survey to be raised and for previous surveys to be checked.
  3. The resident commenced the tenancy in June 2022, and made a number of repairs reports. She reported a hole in flooring at the top of the stairs, plug sockets coming away from the wall, and a leaking radiator, which were resolved the same or the following day. A further leaking radiator report was resolved 11 days later. She also reported that there was a flea and carpet mite infestation and raised concern about the flooring condition. Within 5 days, the landlord inspected and found that there was historic sign of woodwork but the floorboards were structurally sound. Within 8 days, a specialist inspected and agreed with the landlord’s assessment, but recommended insecticidal treatment to a limited area in a cupboard that showed signs of woodworm.
  4. The resident subsequently complained in July 2022. She reported that she had fallen through multiple rotted floorboards at the property, and said more woodworm treatment was needed than was proposed as the issue was more widespread. She raised concern about a number of issues including subsidence and drainage, and said she sought a full inspection, remedial works, and assurances the property was safe to live in for her and her children.
  5. In its August 2022 stage 1 response, the landlord noted that it had inspected and treated for woodworm and there was no evidence of active woodworm. It noted that it had repaired flooring and had offered further works to address an issue with the floor flexing. It noted that subsidence was monitored previously and there was no movement. It acknowledged that the floors sloped, and that the resident had been informed it would be unable to level the floors. It apologised that a leaking radiator had not been resolved on a first visit, and confirmed it had asked its contractor to urgently attend for a report that the issue continued. It noted that the resident felt that she could not live at the property long-term due to the sloping floors, and said it had been agreed to permanently move her. It said that its lettings team would be in contact to discuss this, and confirmed that it would fund the cost of removals and arrange disconnection and reconnection of appliances. It apologised for the distress and disruption the resident had been caused.
  6. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She said that the property should have been checked before it was let. She said that she was seeking for the property to be fixed rather than to be moved. She detailed the impact on her and family. She said that she had tried to make the house safe and suitable but belongings had been caused damage due to issues that had arisen, and items she had put in the back garden had sunk. Following this, the landlord escalated the complaint; met with the resident and her mother, who was a tenant at another property; and arranged for a further specialist inspection and a surveyor visit.
  7. The specialist inspection disagreed with the previous specialist inspection, and found there was an active, but minor, infestation of woodboring insects. The specialist recommended insecticidal treatment of floorboards on the first floor and stairway, and removal and replacement of some affected timbers.
  8. The surveyor noted that there were no structural issues, but noted that the specialist had found woodworm, and ground levels for certain areas had dropped since an inspection 3 years prior. The surveyor noted some work would be required to replace structural timbers, and some external works could be required, such as ground stabilisation work and additional drainage, which would be extremely disruptive. They noted that a structural contractor had been asked to investigate if there had been any unusual movement, and it would be surprising if anything significant was found, but there would be extensive disruption before the resident reached a point where she would feel more comfortable. They noted that it would not be advisable for the resident’s children to be at the property during remedial works. They noted that the resident had been strongly recommended to consider offers of alternative accommodation and that she was open to this.
  9. The landlord subsequently explored and agreed a plan with the resident, and in its September 2022 stage 2 response, it noted that the property was structurally stable but not to the standard fit to be let. It noted that a solution had been identified whereby the resident moved into her mother’s home, and her mother downsized to a different property, which all parties were happy with. It said that it would support both the resident and her mother to move and would tailor its support to their individual needs. It apologised for the situation happening and awarded £200 compensation in addition to the support it was offering.
  10. The information provided advises that the landlord helped move the resident into her mother’s former property in October 2022, as part of which it agreed to carpet the property and replace blinds damaged during the move. The landlord has noted that the resident’s former property will only be used for emergency accommodation going forward, as it is unsuitable as a permanent home, and will use learning from the complaint to adopt a similar approach for other properties that may not be suitable for permanent living.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

  1. The resident has been informed that we cannot determine liability in respect to damage to and loss of belongings. The Ombudsman also only investigates complaints which have had an opportunity to go through a landlord’s complaints procedure, and this investigation does not focus on other issues such as issues when the resident moved into her mother’s property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports and concerns about the letting condition of her former property

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord was clearly responsive to various repairs issues the resident reported, and that it resolved these in a generally timely manner. It also responded in an appropriate way about issues such as woodworm. The landlord’s initial conclusions that there was no or limited active woodworm was based on its own first hand inspection and an independent specialist inspection, which shows its initial conclusions were made in a reasonable way. When the resident continued to raise concern, the landlord responded in a positive and customer focused way by arranging further specialist inspection of the issue. The conclusions of the second specialist inspection was different to the first, but the landlord’s acknowledgement of these showed it was continuing to handle matters in an evidence-based way.
  2. The landlord was also positive in how it responded when the resident raised her complaint. It clearly acknowledged the impact the property had on her, and it was positive that it identified and offered a move as the most appropriate outcome early on, even if this was not an outcome she was seeking. It demonstrated a positive and innovative approach to identify the solution whereby it moved the resident’s mother and then moved the resident into her mother’s former home. It offered appropriate support with the move and clearly sought to recognise the impact on her by paying her £200 compensation, in addition to providing support with blinds and carpets. It has been positive to take on board the issues at the property, to decide to now only use it for emergency accommodation, and to consider lessons learned.
  3. The resident’s property clearly had issues, but the 2017 structural report suggests that movement at the property had stopped and there were no fundamental issues with the property, apart from cosmetic issues and the evenness of the flooring. However, it is noted that a July 2021 voids inspection suspected there was ground movement at the rear, and requested for a structural survey to be raised and for previous surveys to be checked. The Ombudsman has been provided no evidence that structural surveys were carried out between July 2021 and June 2022, and the landlord surveyor who inspected in 2022 indicated that the most recent inspection of the ground levels was 3 years prior.
  4. In addition to this, while this is not a focus of the investigation, the evidence is not clear that 2017 recommendations in respect to levelling and drainage were done. The landlord says they were in October 2021, but only provides a quote for this. There is concern that the landlord’s records for works such as this and voids repairs instructions are not as clear as they could be, for example a void repairs works document noted under bedroom 1 that damaged floor boards throughout the property should be fixed or replaced. While the landlord says that floorboards were replaced as necessary throughout the property, the evidence is not clear about this. In the Ombudsman’s view, listing works for the entire property under only one room has the potential to result in confusion and works not being done as intended.
  5. The lack of a recommended structural survey between July 2021 and June 2022 suggests that the landlord did not take appropriate steps, and did not have all the relevant information it reasonably should have had, before considering the property’s suitability for permanent letting, particularly to a tenant with children including a disabled child. The suitability of the property for permanent letting should have been something that the landlord considered earlier, if it was confirmed earlier that ground works would be required that would cause much disruption to any tenant in-situ.
  6. The resident and her children will have clearly been caused much distress and inconvenience by the events and by having to move twice, and this will have understandably impacted their ability to settle into a new home. The £200 compensation does not seem to go far enough to recognise this, particularly since the evidence suggests this may have been avoided if appropriate action had been taken at the voids stage to carry out a structural survey between July 2021 and June 2022. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure, which would have been a finding of maladministration if the landlord had not gone a long way to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports and concerns about the letting condition of her former property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £300 for the issues identified, and the £200 it previously offered if it has not paid this already.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review any further lessons it can learn in respect to ensuring that a property is suitable for letting to a tenant and members of their household, taking into account a current property condition and surveys or works which are known to be potentially required.
  2. The landlord to review the voids handling and how to try to ensure all voids recommendations are progressed.
  3. The landlord to review its recordkeeping to ensure it maintains clearer records about works it completes at its properties.