Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Brent Council (202106027)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106027

Brent Council

8 September 2021


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracks in her home.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 25 September 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that there were cracks in her home. The landlord’s records show she explained that she could “fit a pound coin in the gaps”.
  3. A surveyor attended on 19 October 2020. They recommended the landlord refer the case to a specialist team. The specialist team carried out a virtual inspection on 2 November (due to COVID-19 restrictions). An individual from the team attended in person on 17 November for a further inspection.
  4. On 18 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said once the specialist team provided their report it would contact her to discuss their recommendations.
  5. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 19, 24 November, and 1 December 2020. The landlord advised her that it was awaiting the report.
  6. On 1 December 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord. She was dissatisfied that it had not dealt with the cracks as an emergency. She said she had chased the report, but the landlord had not provided it. She explained that she was concerned with the cracks and the potential hazards they posed. She said there was a crack above her kitchen door causing it to jam, and she could see “the showers shape pushing through” her kitchen ceiling. She said her home was “full of structural damage and yet Brent Council fail[ed] to see this”. She said she was concerned the house would collapse on top of her family. She said she wanted to be permanently moved for these reasons.
  7. The landlord explained in its stage two complaint response that it contacted the specialist team on 2 December 2020 to chase the report.
  8. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 30 December 2020. No evidence of this response has been provided, so its contents are unknown.
  9. The specialist team provided their report to the landlord on 5 January 2021.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 February 2021. She said the landlord had “failed to flag up that [they were] not protected if a fire start[ed] in [her] home due to the cracks being open from one room to another”. She said the “fumes and the fire itself would leak through the cracks”. She said she would feel safer if the landlord moved her due to the house’s health and safety hazards. She said she believed “anything [could] happen at any given time…collapse being one especially due to climate change”. She said her house was weak, and that more cracks had appeared since she last contacted it. 
  11. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 22 March 2021. It produced a timeline explaining its actions since the resident reported the cracks on 25 September 2020. It confirmed that the specialists had found cracks in the entrance hallway, bathroom, and front left and right side bedrooms. It explained that they had recommended a “precise level monitoring to be carried out for an initial 12 months to assess the nature of the building movements”. It said their report did not indicate any issues with health and safety. It reassured her that if there were any risks it would do what it could to mitigate them. It apologised that she felt it had not considered her report as an emergency. It apologised for the delays with inspecting her home, and obtaining the report. It said it would undertake regular reviews of her home, and carry out all the necessary investigations as noted in the report. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will attend to and make safe emergency works within two hours, and rectify the issue within 24 hours. Among other things it classes emergency repairs as severe leaks, fires, full water failure or structural collapses. It will attend to all other routine appointments within 28 calendar days. The landlord’s website sets out situations in which it would consider a resident’s request to move homes. For example, if their property was underoccupied, or in exceptional circumstances (such as if recommended by the police).
  2. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response it apologised for the delay in obtaining the report, and inspecting her home. It clearly set out what work it intended to carry out as a result of the report, and reassured her that it would continue to monitor the issue. The landlord’s response was reasonable as it demonstrated that it had taken steps to address, and resolve her concerns.
  3. The resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not dealt with her report as an emergency. As explained in paragraph 13, among other issues, the landlord considers structural collapses to be emergency repairs. It is also generally accepted that emergency repairs are ones which present an immediate threat to a person’s safety. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to suggest that the issues reported by the resident, alarming as they would have seemed, were indications of an imminent structural collapse which the landlord should have treated as an emergency. The landlord therefore acted in accordance with its repairs policy by attending within its target timeframe of 28 calendar days.
  4. Throughout her complaint, the resident reiterated that she wanted to move homes as a result of her health and safety concerns. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response it explained that it had not identified such hazards. The resident’s concerns for her family’s safety are understandable. Nonetheless, the landlord was entitled to rely on and relay the report findings. It reassured her that there were no risks, and said if it did detect any, it would take steps to mitigate them. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to consider the resident’s transfer request, as there were no apparent grounds on which it could reasonably be expected to consider a move in line with what its website sets out (as explained in paragraph 13).

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded to her report in line with its target timeframe for a non-emergency repair. It advised her that it would carry out the recommendations identified in the surveyor’s report, and reassured her that there were no health and safety issues.