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

Abri Group Limited (202302263)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302263

Abri Group Limited

17 May 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of subsidence at the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a one-bedroom flat. The resident lived at the property with her partner and child.
  2. In June 2017 the resident told the landlord she had cracks running along the ceiling of her property. In November 2017 the landlord referred the repair to its buildings insurer which confirmed the cracks at the property were as a result of subsidence. The cracks were assessed as ranging from a hairline crack to a maximum of 3 millimetres.
  3. In May 2018, the insurer told the landlord that its further investigation confirmed that the subsidence at the property was caused by root induced clay shrinkage. Multiple trees were implicated as causing the subsidence, all of which had tree preservation orders. For this reason, the insurer was required to monitor and provide extensive evidence of the subsidence to the local authority which then granted the removal of one tree on 10 March 2021.
  1. In July 2021, the landlord removed the tree that was implicated as causing the subsidence at the property. On 14 September 2021, the resident told the landlord that it had not responded to her requests for it to carry out the repairs at her property, following the tree causing the subsidence being removed. The resident said the delays had impacted her ability to do a home swap. The landlord responded that it would contact the insurer to ask if it could complete the repair immediately.
  2. Between August 2021 and April 2022 the insurer continued to monitor the subsidence at the property. This was so it could confirm if the removal of the one tree was enough to stabilise the ground and prevent further subsidence at the resident’s property.
  3. On 5 May 2022 the insurer told the landlord that it was satisfied that the repairs to the resident’s property caused by the subsidence, could be completed.
  4. On 6 June 2022 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about it failing to communicate or carry out the outstanding repairs to her property.
  5. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 7 July 2022. It apologised and told the resident that it could have done more to keep her updated about the repairs and subsidence at her property. The landlord said its contractor would contact her direct in order to arrange an inspection, and it would then complete the outstanding repairs. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and requested the escalation of her complaint.
  6. In December 2022 the landlord’s contractor carried out the replastering and decoration works at the resident’s property. On 12 December 2022 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. It apologised to the resident for its delays and poor communication. It awarded the resident the following in compensation:
    1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication and this impacting delays to the resident’s house swap.
    2. £250 for the time and trouble and for the resident not receiving a response from the landlord.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman stating that the issues with subsidence at her property had meant that on 2 previous occasions she had been unable to complete a house swap to a 2-bedroom property, that she needed for her child. The resident said that a third house swap was at risk of falling through, because of the landlord’s lack of communication about the repairs. The resident was also seeking an increase in compensation to £5000.
  8. In April 2023 the landlord’s contractor completed the window repair and repointing at the property that had been caused by the subsidence. On 31 January 2024 the landlord told the resident that it had carried out a further review of her stage one and 2 complaints. It awarded the resident a further £50 compensation for its delays in its handling of her complaint at stage one.
  9. In May 2024 the resident confirmed she is no longer at the property following a house swap.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failure on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failure did lead to an adverse effect, the Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and to have ‘learned from outcomes.

Scope of Investigation

  1. Section 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This service has taken into consideration that the resident has had issues of subsidence at her property since June 2017. The Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident has been impacted by the subsidence at her property between 2017 and 2023. The resident raised her complaint to the landlord in June 2022 in relation to this issue. In line with the Scheme, this service has therefore considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence at her property between June 2021 to its final response provided on 12 December 2022.

The resident’s reports of subsidence at the property

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states it has the following categorises in which it responds to repairs:
    1. Emergency – It will respond within 24 hours to make safe an emergency repair.
    2. Non-emergency – It will provide appointments as its response to all of these types of repairs.
  2. In July 2021 the landlord’s contractor removed a tree that was responsible for causing subsidence at the resident’s property. On 31 July 2021 the resident asked the landlord to carry out the outstanding repairs to her property caused by the subsidence following its removal of the tree.
  3. On 2 August 2021 the landlord said it would contact its insurer to confirm whether it could complete the outstanding repairs. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. This was because the insurer had instructed the landlord to await carrying out repairs caused by the subsidence at the property until the subsidence had been resolved. However the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord followed this request up. There is also no evidence that it communicated with the resident with what the insurer’s advice had been. This is evidence of poor communication by the landlord.
  4. On 14 September 2021, the resident chased the landlord about when the repairs would be completed at her property. She asked the landlord to provide a timescale for the works. The landlord responded the same day and said it would chase the insurer. Again there is no evidence provided to this service that the landlord did this. This is further evidence of poor communication and poor handling of its repairs.
  5. Between September 2021 and November 2021 the insurer and its contractor were seeking confirmation from the landlord that it had removed the tree implicated in causing subsidence at the property. The landlord confirmed this to the insurer on 8 November 2021. This was 4 months after the tree had been removed. The delay in the landlord updating the insurer was unreasonable. The landlord should have provided this information in July 2021 when the tree was first removed. The Ombudsman understands that this delay in the landlord’s communication will have impacted the insurer’s further assessment of the subsidence investigation at the property. This will have most likely then have caused a further delay to the repairs to the resident’s property. This was not appropriate and further evidence of poor communication.
  6. On 5 May 2022 the landlord’s insurer told the landlord to complete the repairs to the resident’s property that had been caused by the subsidence. In September 2022, the landlord carried out a survey of the works to be completed at the resident’s property. It then carried out the replastering and decoration works between 6 December 2022 and 14 December 2022. This was 223 days after the landlord was told it was able to complete the works. This was not an appropriate response. The landlord should have completed an inspection of the property within 28 days of 5 May 2022, in line with its repairs policy. This was when the landlord’s insurer had told the landlord it could complete the repairs. It should have then provided the resident with a timescale, and then completed these works within 28 days of that survey. This is evidence of poor repair handling.
  7. The landlord’s contractor did not complete the repair to a window at the property or the repointing of the brickwork in December 2022 as scheduled. These repairs had been caused by the subsidence and were identified during the landlord’s inspection of the property in September 2022. The landlord is responsible for the actions and works carried out by its contractors on its behalf. The landlord’s contractor completed the further repairs on 24 April 2023. This was 354 days after the landlord’s insurer said that it was able to complete the repairs. This delay was unreasonable as the work should have been completed within 8 weeks of 5 May 2022 and the landlord has not shown there was a legitimate reason for the delay/
  8. There is evidence of failings in the landlord’s communication, as well as significant delays as described above in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence at her property. These errors by the landlord contributed to the overall delay in the repairs being carried out at the resident’s property.
  9. The resident has explained that due to the delays, and the landlord not communicating in providing timescales on when the repairs would be completed she lost out on 2 home swaps. The Ombudsman understands that this would have been particularly distressing for the resident as her property was overcrowded. It is our role to assess the impact which the landlord’s errors had on the resident. When assessing this, we need to consider that the landlord was not at fault for causing the subsidence. Also, it was reliant on its buildings insurer to confirm what steps were required to resolve the subsidence after a period of monitoring. Whist there were delays in carrying out repairs after the insurer confirmed that repairs could start, it is not clear from the evidence provided if this was the single direct cause of the house swaps falling through. Therefore, the landlord is not required to pay specific compensation for the loss of the home swaps. However, it should compensate the resident for the general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the delayed repairs.
  10. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s final complaint response, which included an apology and £500 compensation to be both a reasonable and proportionate response to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out this service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. Under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, examples of when this level of compensation is appropriate include where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident but resulted in no permanent impact.
  1. There was no permanent impact from the failings as the landlord did complete the repairs, offered compensation, and the resident was able to complete her home swap to a more suitable property. Therefore, the landlord’s actions within its final response represent reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence at her property. The landlord is not required to do anything further.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord states that where possible it will provide its written response at stage one within 10 working days. Following a request to escalate a complaint, the landlord states it will provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord states it may need to extend its response times at either stage of its complaints process, but that this would not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
  2. On 6 June 2022 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of subsidence at the property. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 7 July 2022. This took 23 working days. The landlord has provided no evidence that it communicated with the resident to provide a ‘good reason’ why it could not respond within 10 working days, as per its complaint policy. This delay was therefore unreasonable.
  3. On 2 August 2022 the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint. The landlord provided its final response on 12 December 2022. This was 93 working days later. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling Code (published on our website) sets out an expectation that landlords will provide its stage 2 response to a resident’s complaint within 20 working days. Therefore, this further delay was not appropriate. This is evidence of poor complaint handling and poor communication.
  4. On 31 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and stated that upon reviewing its stage one complaint response, it awarded the resident £50 compensation for its delay at stage one, in addition to its apology. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess landlords’ handling of complaints through their internal complaint procedures, which end with the final response letter. It is positive that the landlord has reviewed its complaint handling after the end of the complaints process. However it has not considered its delay at stage 2 in its further offer of compensation. This offer was also not made until some 13 months after the time of the landlord’s original final response. Therefore, the landlord failed to effectively put things right during its complaints process and missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
  5. For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure for the delays as described above in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  6. The Ombudsman has considered its own remedies guidance, as set out above. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for errors in its handling of the resident’s complaint. This amount includes the £50 the landlord awarded the resident on 31 January 2024. Examples from the remedies guidance of when this level of compensation is appropriate include where there was a minor failure in the service and the landlord did not fully put it right, as in this case where there were delays at both stages of the complaints process.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £150 within 28 days of this report. This includes the £50 it awarded the resident on 31 January 2024. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £500 in compensation that it awarded her in its stage one and stage 2 complaint responses if it has not already done so, within 28 days of this report. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence at the property is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.