Camden Council (202016856)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016856

Camden Council

2 February 2022

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. This complaint is about:

a.     The landlord’s handling of ongoing subsidence and the resulting damage to the building;

b.     The landlord’s response to reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) from the resident or his tenants;

c.      The landlord’s response to reports of a leak at the property;

d.     The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which he rents to private tenants. The lease began on 8 December 1997. The property is a three-bedroom first floor flat in a converted Victorian townhouse. The building is in the middle of a terrace and comprises three flats. The landlord is a local authority, and the top floor flat is occupied by the landlord’s tenant.
3. The lease agreement shows the landlord is obliged to maintain, repair and renew the structure of the building including: the foundations; walls; roof and communal areas. The resident is responsible for repairing and maintaining the flat. The agreement gives limited information in respect of maintenance. It does not define the term or specify how or when it should occur.
4. The landlord’s repairs policy shows it prioritises repairs according to urgency. It will complete emergency repairs the same day. Urgent repairs will be completed within five working days. Routine repairs will be completed in 20 working days and programmed repairs will be completed within an agreed timescale. Programmed repairs are defined as complex, subject to leaseholder consultation or involving specialist works.
5. The landlord’s housing repairs service guide shows the landlord operates a responsive repairs service.
6. The landlord did not provide copies of specific ASB policy or procedure documents. Since the Ombudsman was also unable to find similar documents online, the landlord’s Tenants’ Guide was used for the purposes of the assessment.
7. The Tenants’ Guide contains a section on anti-social behaviour and nuisance. It sets out the following options available to the landlord to prevent ASB: verbal or written warnings, written agreements, mediation and legal action. The document shows the landlord can work with the police in some cases. Tenants are advised to keep a record of incidents. The landlord can refer tenants to an ASB support scheme.
8. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy document confirms complaints will be acknowledged in two working days at each stage. The landlord aims to issue stage one complaint responses within ten working days. It aims to issue stage two responses within 25 working days. While complex cases may take longer, timescales should be agreed with complainants who should also be kept updated.
9. The landlord’s Remedies Policy and Procedure document is available online. The policy took effect from 1 October 2020. It shows the landlord can offer compensation in the event of service failure for issues such as delay or distress and inconvenience.

Summary of events

10. The landlord’s repairs history shows ivy growth was reported on the front face of the building on 19 February 2019. Penetrative damp was recorded along with cracking in the communal stairwell. The corresponding works order was cancelled but no further information was given.
11. The repairs history shows a works order was raised on 20 May 2019 in respect of “structural monitoring and repair of cracks in flat”. The order was closed on
    7 November 2019, but no additional closure details were given.
12. A structural inspection was completed on 13 June 2019. The inspection report recorded several cracks in the building’s brickwork. It concluded the likely cause was ground movement, but the building’s overall structural integrity was not compromised. It highlighted a drying of the subsoil over successive seasons, possibly in conjunction with tree root activity, as the likely cause of the damage.
13. The inspection report made a number of recommendations including: investigation works into the soil; precautionary removal of the ivy; removal or reduction of the on-street tree, in conjunction with advice from an Arboriculturist; ongoing monitoring of the cracks; soil and tree root investigation works using trial pits; notifying the landlord’s insurer and conducting a CCTV drain survey. It concluded the cause of the movement could not presently be determined, and any immediate repairs may be subject to further damage.
14. A CCTV drain survey to the foul and waste services was completed on 27 June 2019. The survey found a hole in a cast iron pipe beneath the property was causing seepage into the surrounding soil. Further, the pipework had not been maintained and required extensive high-pressure jetting and mechanical works to restore the original flow rate.
15. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 November 2019 about the cracks. It said the landlord’s insurance team had been notified of potential subsidence and investigations were ongoing. Crack monitoring was expected to last at least 12 months. Specialist contractors had been instructed to attend and their reports would be passed to the landlord’s engineering consultant or loss adjuster for a response.
16. The repairs history shows a works order was raised for “subsidence investigations: Geo Technical Services” on 10 December 2019. The order was closed on 13 March 2020.
17. The landlord’s Arboricultural report is dated 31 December 2019. It identified Ivy and Crab Apple as the dominant features close to the area of movement. It also identified their collective influence as the primary cause of the subsidence. It recommended complete removal to restore the long-term stability of the soil.
18. The repairs history shows a further order for crack monitoring was raised on
    13 March 2020. The information seen suggests the order remains open.
19. The repairs history shows the ivy was removed from the front of the building on
    6 April 2020. This was more than 13 months after a works order was raised to address the issue.
20. The repairs history shows a works order for engineer’s fees was raised on
    15 April 2020. Again, the information suggests the order remains open.
21. A water leak was reported at the property on 17 June 2020. The repair history shows water was escaping through a light fitting in the bathroom ceiling. An inspection was completed the same day and the lights were made safe.
22. The repair history shows a further works order was raised in relation to the roof on 19 June 2020. The landlord later said this order was raised to investigate the cause of the leak, and it established scaffolding was needed on 23 June 2020.
23. The history shows temporary bracing works to support a slipped keystone were completed on 27 July 2020.
24. The landlords ASB timeline, based on its contact records, runs from 30 June 2020 to 29 June 2021. It shows the landlord became involved after receiving two reports from the upstairs flat about resident’s tenants, who were in the process of moving out. The reports, received within a three-day period, related to noise nuisance after 8pm and unusual behaviour. They prompted the landlord to discuss the situation with the involved parties between 3 and 14 July 2020.
25. During the initial discussions, the resident reported the neighbour and his tenants were in a dispute and both parties had previously called the police. His tenants had said the neighbour made false allegations and displayed paranoid behaviour. The timeline shows this information prompted the landlord to share the residents’ concerns, about the neighbour’s mental health, with an external support agency later that day.
26. This resulted in a meeting between the landlord; the neighbour, and her family; and a professional network on 14 July 2020. The timeline shows the resident’s concerns were discussed, and it was identified the neighbour needed additional support. This meeting took place two weeks after the first report was received from the neighbour.
27. The landlord’s repairs history shows a works order was raised on 8 July 2020 for its major repairs team to clear the building’s gutters. It also shows the landlord’s routine repairs team attended the roof on 10 and 17 July 2020. The landlord has said the initial visit involved clearance of the flat roof and outlets. The repairs history confirms tiling and asphalt works were completed during the second visit. The information seen suggests the resident was incorrectly informed the repairs were completed around this time.
28. In correspondence to the landlord on 20 July 2020, the resident said the attending roofer had observed a rotten dormer above the property’s bathroom. Further, the roofer felt an urgent repair to the dormer was needed because its condition may have contributed to the leak.
29. On 6 August 2020 the resident notified the landlord of an incident between his new tenants, his electrician and the neighbour. He said the electrician was working in the building’s communal area at around 8:30pm when the neighbour came down and began shouting. The landlord spoke to the neighbour the following day. The timeline shows she reported being upset her children were woken by the electrician working. She denied being abusive and agreed to report any further concerns directly to the landlord to avoid confrontation.
30. A works order to monitor cracks was raised on 7 August 2020. The order was eventually marked as closed with a completion date of 28 October 2020. No further information was given.
31. During the evening of 16 August 2020, the resident reported a further water leak had occurred through the bathroom roof. The landlord raised a corresponding works order the following day and the electrics were, again, promptly made safe.
32. On 7 September 2020 the resident notified the landlord the neighbour had been hostile to his tenants. Noise from the neighbour’s children had caused the incident. The timeline shows the resident was advised noise made by children was not considered ASB. However, his tenants could record incidents in a log to help the landlord investigate further. Although use of a log was declined, the resident agreed to pass the landlord’s details to his tenants so they could report any further issues directly. A meeting with professionals from agencies supporting the neighbour took place the same day.
33. On 13 September 2020 the landlord received safeguarding concerns from the resident. The concerns were raised by his tenants and supported with audio evidence. These concerns were shared with the external agencies the following day.
34. The landlord spoke to the resident’s tenant on 15 September 2020. The timeline shows it explained safeguarding concerns would need to be raised with the supporting agencies. The tenant reported frequent noise from upstairs but was unsure whether it was deliberate or the result of poor sound insulation.
35. The repairs history shows a works order for roof and dormer repairs was closed on 16 September 2020. Because the order was raised two days earlier, the response timescale shows it was treated as an urgent repair. The landlord later said that all outstanding roof works were completed around this time. It also said its routine repairs team was unaware the major works team were also involved, and this may have caused confusion.
36. The landlord held a meeting with the support agencies on 21 September 2020. The neighbour also joined the meeting. She denied the recent allegations but was involved in a discussion about how relations could be improved. The landlord issued a verbal warning that continuing the behaviour may breach the terms of her tenancy agreement. The meeting took place eight days after the initial safeguarding report. A follow up meeting with supporting agencies took place on 23 September 2020. During this meeting, a written agreement was drafted for the neighbour with a view to preventing further incidents.
37. Following contacts with the resident’s tenant about further noise nuisance on
    25 September 2020, the landlord again recommended the use of an incident log on 14 October 2020. The recommendation was made during a phone call with the resident. The landlord’s ongoing collaboration with external agencies was also discussed.
38. Later that day the resident reported new incidents of verbal abuse and aggression on the part of the neighbour. He said the neighbour should be rehoused and the landlord breached its freeholder obligations by housing the neighbour in the building.
39. The resident also raised a formal complaint on 14 October 2020. The main points were:

a.     The landlord delayed re-repairing the bathroom leak and acknowledged the issue was not correctly resolved by its initial works. It also mishandled the reinstatement of his bathroom lights by cancelling an appointment, on the day it was due, on the basis reinstatement was the resident’s responsibility.

b.     The landlord had placed an unsuitable tenant in the upstairs flat contrary to a previous assurance the next occupant would be a “sensitive let”. This assurance was given due to ASB issues caused by the previous occupant.

c.      Subsidence would not have occurred if the landlord had undertaken regular supervision and maintenance of the building in line with its obligations. For example, it negligently allowed ivy, a known cause of cracks, to grow unchecked on an external wall.

d.     A survey in May 2019 recommended monitoring the subsidence, but monitoring was delayed until June 2020. The landlord also failed to communicate details of the monitoring with the resident, or to update the insurer.

e.     These issues amounted to a breach of the landlord’s obligations as a freeholder.

40. The resident made a further ASB report on behalf of his tenants on 15 October 2020. The timeline shows the report concerned excessive noise late at night, along with an allegation the neighbour repeatedly kicked his tenants’ front door. It shows the residents were reluctant to alert the police as they didn’t want to escalate the situation. The landlord advised incidents like the allegation should be reported to the police. However, the landlord’s out of hours noise team could investigate and verify reports of noise nuisance.
41. The landlord contacted the tenant the same day to acknowledge the new report. It said safety concerns should be reported to the relevant agency and the landlord would follow up any actions taken by the police. Further, it could refer the tenant to an ASB support project on request. The tenant later confirmed he would be involving the police.
42. On 16 October 2020 the landlord contacted the neighbour who denied the reports and made counter allegations. The timeline shows the neighbour was advised to follow her signed written agreement. The landlord held a meeting with the support agencies later that day. It concerned the actions put in place to address issues with the neighbour.
43. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows the resident’s complaint was raised on 27 October 2020 and a response was due on 10 November 2020. It also shows there was a delay in sending the complaint to the correct department. This resulted in a delay of around seven working days before the complaint was raised. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence the complaint was acknowledged.
44. The landlord contacted the tenant for an update on 27 October 2020. He reported feeling the neighbour was trying to provoke him and that noise was being made deliberately. However, he had received less abusive comments recently and the neighbour was quiet during the day since her children were at school. The tenant provided several audio recordings of incidents by email after the conversation.
45. The landlord contacted Environmental Health the following day for advice. The timeline shows the advice was it would be difficult to consider household noise as ASB if there was poor sound insulation in the building. Further, the sound of children playing was not covered by legislation concerning noise. Raised adult voices could be, but this was often difficult to evidence. The landlord received confirmation, from a supporting agency, that a safeguarding intervention had been implemented with the neighbour later that day.
46. On 2 November 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiry around the timescales for crack monitoring. Its email acknowledged the landlord had taken around four months to respond to the enquiry because the email was overlooked. It referred to the estimated timescale of at least 12 months referenced in the landlord’s notification letter from November 2019. It said monitoring intervals were typically between two and three months.
47. The landlord spoke to representatives from the supporting agencies again on
    12 November 2020. It was advised the agencies had been addressing concerns about the neighbour and devising a support plan. The timeline shows the neighbour and her family were temporarily moved from their accommodation the same day.
48. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 17 November 2020. This was five working days after the due date. The wording of the response said the complaint was received on 27 October 2020. The main points were:

a.     The cause of the subsidence was yet to be determined. It had been identified in the early stages of planned Better Homes Works to the building.

b.     The issue was referred to the landlord’s structural engineer who instructed an external contractor to arrange investigatory works. The landlord eventually changed contractor (around January 2020) because none of these works had been progressed.

c.      The landlord took over crack monitoring in mid-March 2020, but it was unable to start the works due to lockdown restrictions.

d.     The landlord failed to respond to five of the resident’s emails between 27 July and 2 September 2020. It recently addressed the points raised in a letter dated 2 November 2020.

e.     The landlord had updated the insurer when new information had become available.

f.        The landlord operated a reactive repair service responding to repairs as and when they were reported.

g.     The leak had occurred due to a combination of roof defects, which were responded to as and when they were reported.

h.     The landlord did not have the resources to carry out regular condition surveys of its properties. However, it did use stock condition surveys to prioritise properties in need of repair.

i.        The landlord was working in collaboration with supporting agencies to address ASB concerns. The situation was difficult, but it was trying to minimise the impact to resident’s tenants while balancing its obligations to the neighbour.

j.        Given the age of the building, there would be some noise transference between the flats. The landlord continued to investigate reports, but a statutory nuisance had not been established to date.

k.      The complaint was partially upheld given: the leak wasn’t fully resolved in July 2020; there were delays to the subsidence investigation works and the case could have been handled better. As a result, the landlord would reimburse the resident for reinstatement of his bathroom lights on receipt of an invoice.

49. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 30 November 2020. The main points were:

a.     The landlord was in breach of its freeholder obligations to maintain the property as set out in the lease agreement. This amounted to negligence which impacted the health, safety and wellbeing of residents and caused him financial loss.

b.     The landlord’s admission that it lacked the resources to conduct regular maintenance did not alter its obligations and it had neglected the building. For example, the landlord was obliged to maintain the roof, so the resident assumed this meant keeping it waterproof as a minimum. However, he could not recall any occasions when the roof or guttering had been inspected.

c.      The landlord did not respond within its complaint timescales. It also failed to respond to a number his previous phone or email enquiries.

d.     The situation was stressful, and the resident’s work was impacted by both the time and effort taken by trying to resolve issues, and the distress caused. The resident had similar concerns for his wife’s wellbeing.

50. On 1 December 2020 the landlord updated the resident by email. The email said the 12-month period of crack monitoring started in July 2020. It also said the results of geo-technical investigation works were incomplete and further excavation was required to examine the ground below the foundations.
51. The repairs history shows a regrowth of the ivy was poisoned on 12 December 2020.
52. It also shows an order for crack monitoring was raised on 18 December 2020 but was cancelled without being completed. A separate order was raised the same day in relation to replacement window bracing and internal works due to subsidence age and character. The repairs records indicate this order remains open.
53. Between 20 November 2020 and 10 February 2021, the landlord was in contact with the resident; his tenants; the neighbour and the supporting agencies. During this time, the resident reported an allegation of drug use against the neighbour. He was advised this would need to be reported to the police. His tenants were advised the landlord was unable to discuss the specifics of the neighbour’s case given confidentiality concerns.
54. The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 18 February 2021. This was more than eleven weeks after the resident’s escalation request, or a delay of 30 working days. The main points were:

a.     Additional soil samples and excavation were required, to inspect the building’s foundations, since the landlord was dissatisfied with the content of a previous geo technical report. While the resident would be notified of the outcome, subsidence was a time consuming and difficult issue to resolve. The landlord was therefore unable to specify a time frame for resolution.

b.     The insurer had confirmed it was aware of the subsidence. It created a claim record for information purposes only since it wasn’t aware of any damage to the resident’s property.

c.      Monitoring of subsidence related cracks had begun on 20 July 2020 but some site visits had been prevented due to Covid-19 restrictions. The landlord was willing to provide the resident with a detailed chronology of events.

d.     The landlord’s area staff were able to report repairs and residents were encouraged to do the same. However, it wasn’t always possible to identify necessary repairs, and this could lead to unintentional wear and tear, neglect or delayed remedial works. The pandemic also made identification more difficult, and the landlord lacked the resources or manpower to conduct preventative inspections.

e.     The landlord conducted stock condition surveys every five years and the building was last inspected in 2018. These surveys were used for the purposes of planning and prioritising investment.

f.        The building had been identified as needing investment and was therefore included in the Better Homes Investment Programme. However, it was later removed due to the subsidence. Once the issue was resolved, it was feasible the building would be included in a future programme.

g.     The landlord had raised a Subject Access Request in response the resident’s request for details of previous inspections.

h.     The neighbour had recently returned to the upstairs flat and an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement was in place. The case details were confidential but, in general, the landlord did not immediately pursue punitive action since it had many vulnerable residents. Instead, it aimed to work with all parties and legal recourse was used as a last resort.

i.        The resident’s complaint was partially upheld. Delays had occurred to investigation works and the case could have been handled better. It had been confirmed the landlord was also slow to respond to the insurer. The landlord was working to resolve the issues as soon as possible. It was also seeking to improve its communication with residents.

55. The landlord received an update from the resident’s tenants on 1 March 2021. It said they called the police on 28 February 2021 in response to an argument between the neighbour and a visitor. Supporting audio evidence of the incident was provided.
56. The landlord attempted to verify the new report with the police on 3 March 2021. The report was verified on 12 March 2021, but it was confirmed no offences were identified and no further action was taken. In the interim period, the landlord received a counter allegation of noise nuisance from the neighbour.
57. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 15 March 2021 about noise and ASB. The letter said details of the incident on 28 February 2021 were confirmed by the police. It referenced tenancy conditions around responsibility for visitors and noise levels. It said concerns continued to be raised and the situation was serious. Further reports could lead to legal action by the landlord who may be entitled to seek possession of the accommodation.
58. An email exchange took place between the landlord and the resident on
    19 March 2021. The timeline shows the resident had ongoing concerns about ASB. He was advised the landlord continued to work with the supporting agencies. The landlord had also interviewed the neighbour who denied allegations of verbal abuse and harassment. The resident was notified about the warning letter. The landlord requested copies of any completed incident logs.
59. The landlord contacted the police again the following day. The timeline shows the police advised they were unable to act due concerns about the neighbour’s vulnerability. The landlord asked the police to raise a safeguarding referral in the event criminal offences had been committed.
60. On 22 March 2021 the resident requested an update on the ongoing monitoring of ground movement. He enquired as to the next steps and whether the building would eventually be certified as structurally adequate. He said the landlord had been investigating for more than two years.
61. The resident reported further harassment and threats towards his tenants on
    23 March 2021. This prompted the landlord to speak to the neighbour the same day. The neighbour denied the allegations and said the reports were malicious. The neighbour was reminded about the contents of the warning letter. The landlord emailed the resident about the ASB support services available to his tenants the following day.
62. The tenant notified the landlord he had reported harassment to the police following several ASB incidents from 27 March 2021. Audio evidence was included in the email. This prompted the landlord to discuss the situation separately with the tenant and support agencies. The tenant said he asked the police not to approach the neighbour since they indicated they were unable to act based on the report.
63. The landlord provided the resident with a technical update on 30 March 2021. It gave details of recent crack measurements and advised that monitoring was ongoing. It said certification or comments on the repairs would only be provided on completion of any recommended works.
64. On 31 March 2021 the landlord asked the police for details of recently reported ASB incidents. It also passed on details of the supporting agencies and asked the police to join future meetings with the professional network. The landlord held a joint call to the resident with a police officer the same day. The timeline shows security advice was given and it was emphasised that incidents needed to be reported to relevant services while they were occurring.
65. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 April 2021. The email set out his understanding of a conversation, with the landlord, around subsidence which took place earlier that day. The main points were:

a.     Trial pits had been dug and investigatory works were ongoing. The results would be collected within days and sent for analysis, which could take up to two months. The structural engineer would review the results and issue a report. The landlord would not have an outcome until it received the report.

b.     The original trial pits had not been dug deep enough because no structural engineer had been present at the time of digging.

c.      Crack monitoring was due to be complete in July 2021, but the landlord’s present view was that trees or drains in the area were the most likely cause.

d.     Victorian properties were susceptible to cracks and both 2018 and 2019 were considered event years for subsidence due to the lack of rainfall.

e.     Underpinning would require extensive works and may require residents to be temporarily rehoused.

f.        The resident understood remedial works could be complete by the end of August 2021 assuming underpinning was not required.

In his closing comments the resident said it had been over a year since the initial trial pits had been excavated to the incorrect depth.

66. The tenant reported a further ASB incident on 23 April 2021. He said the neighbour was shouting in her flat and he felt some of her comments were directed at him and his partner. Audio recordings were again provided.
67. The landlord contacted the police by email on 4 May 2021 to follow up on the tenant’s previous report.
68. On 28 May 2021 the resident advised the landlord his new tenants had recently moved in. However, the managing agent had reported a smell of cannabis in the communal areas of the building. The resident suspected the neighbour had caused the smell. The landlord asked for details of the days and times the smell occurred so an unannounced visit could be arranged.
69. The resident notified the landlord his new tenants raised ASB concerns on
    22 June 2021. This prompted the landlord to initiate an email exchange with one of the new tenants. This was to provide advice and request incident logs. The new concerns were shared with the supporting agencies the same day and the police were contacted. The police confirmed they had received a report on
    20 June 2021. An urgent professionals meeting was requested by the landlord.
70. On 23 June 2021 the landlord discussed the new ASB reports internally. It was agreed the incidents formed a pattern of established behaviour and legal action may be required. However, feedback from supporting agencies would first be required. The information was relayed to the resident the same day.  The resident expressed concerns around escalation and the landlord agreed to continue meeting with the neighbour to decide whether other options were available.
71. The landlord emailed the new tenants on 28 June 2021 to acknowledge their new reports of ASB.
72. The final timeline entry is dated 29 June 2021, it shows a professionals meeting took place that day and the supporting agencies advised increased monitoring was taking place. New interventions would also be attempted. The landlord advised it would be likely to take legal action given the pattern of behaviour.
73. The landlord gave the Ombudsman an update on the ASB when it provided its evidence file. It said it was unable to provide specific details given the nature of the neighbour’s vulnerability. However, it was working with the supporting agencies to address concerns and explore available interventions. It had proposed legal action beginning with a notice of seeking possession. A proportionality assessment was being undertaken given the neighbour’s known vulnerability and the landlord’s equalities obligations as a local authority.
74. On 26 April 2021 the resident notified the Ombudsman his core concerns remained unresolved. He said he required a timescale for completion of the remaining subsidence investigations, along with concrete deadlines. He also said the landlord had failed to fix the water damage to the communal staircase caused by the leak.

Assessment and findings

75. The resident has said the landlord’s handling of several issues concerning repairs and maintenance amounted to negligence. Further, the landlord is liable for any financial loss he has suffered due to this negligence. For example, the value of the property, which he intended to sell, has decreased because structural subsidence issues are unresolved. Similarly, his property returns a lower rental income due to unresolved ASB issues with the neighbour.
76. The Ombudsman is unable to reach findings in respect of liability or negligence. The Ombudsman is also unable to award or calculate damages. These are legal matters which are likely to need consideration by a court. As a result, the resident’s concerns surrounding liability, negligence or damages are beyond the scope of this assessment. The resident could contact Citizen’s Advice if he wants guidance on how to pursue these matters.
77. This assessment carefully considered the resident’s argument that the landlord breached the lease agreement by failing to proactively to maintain the building. The starting point was to refer to the wording of the agreement, which is the legal document defining the respective obligations of both parties. It was noted the wording of this document implies that maintenance and repair are distinct actions.
78. Although the document confirms the landlord has clear obligations to repair, no wording was found in the agreement to specify the landlord’s obligations in respect of maintenance. For example, to show how or when the parties agreed that maintenance should be carried out. Since the agreement didn’t clarify the issue, this assessment referred to statutory provisions related to the repairing obligations of landlords. It was able to find a significant body of applicable case law, specifically concerning maintenance, from which to extract guiding principles.
79. Given the above this assessment was unable to draw firm conclusions on the matter. Since it appears to involve a legal argument, the issue is also beyond the scope of this assessment.

The landlord’s handling of ongoing subsidence and the resulting damage

80. The landlord acknowledged it was responsible for delays and case handling failures in its complaint responses. The structural report recommended investigation works on 13 June 2019, including crack monitoring and trial pits. However, the landlord eventually confirmed crack monitoring did not begin until 20 July 2020, which was over 13 months later. Whilst the above timeline suggests some works were ongoing in the interim period, the repairs history records do not provide specific details beyond a brief description. The landlord later said that necessary works were not progressed at this time.
81. Given the above, the landlord’s confirmed commencement date was accepted for the purposes of this assessment. In correspondence with the landlord, the resident previously identified a delay of around eight months, adjusting for Covid-19 restrictions beginning on 23 March 2020, before crack monitoring began. The above information confirms this figure was broadly accurate, but the delay may have been more than nine months.
82. Given the specialist nature of the works, they fell into the category of programmed repairs as defined by the landlord’s repairs policy. While they were not subject to a set completion timescale, the above timeframe nevertheless represents an unreasonable delay. Even more so because works to repair the damage could not begin until it was established the ground below the building had stabilised. No information has been seen to show the delay was either necessary or explainable. The landlord said it ultimately changed contractor because of the delay and this is supported by other evidence seen by the Ombudsman.
83. Further evidence of delay is given in the above timeline, which shows ivy growth at the front of the building took around 13 months, between 19 February 2019 and 6 April 2020, to remove. This is based on the date it was first reported, rather than the recommendation in the structural report, with a lesser adjustment for Covid -19 given the works were external in nature. It is noted there is disagreement between the reports as to the overriding cause of the subsidence. Further, no evidence has been seen to show final conclusions were drawn by a qualified professional. Nevertheless, the above represents an unreasonable timescale to remove the ivy.
84. The timeline shows a further avoidable delay occurred because recommended trail pits were initially dug to the wrong depth. The Ombudsman has not seen direct confirmation of this error from the landlord, but the delay is supported by evidence including: the repairs history, which shows a geo technical works order was closed in March 2020; the landlord’s update from 1 December 2020, which confirms additional excavation was needed; the landlord’s stage two response from 18 February 2018, which reflected the previous update and the resident’s summary of a conversation with the landlord on 22 April 2021, which said the landlord had confirmed an error occurred. The summary also indicated new trial pits had been dug recently.
85. The above shows an unreasonable delay of around 12 months occurred before the landlord commenced satisfactory geo-technical investigations. It is noted the resident’s summary email suggests the error resulted from the landlord’s case handling. This is because it said a relevant specialist was not present to supervise the works. Again, it is reasonable to conclude the delay to these investigation works hampered the progress of structural repairs. It is also noted works had been ongoing, in line with the recommendations in the structural report from 13 June 2019, for more than one year and ten months at the point of the resident’s summary email in April 2021. However, no indication has been seen to show the subsidence presented a danger to the building’s occupants.
86. The landlord’s stage one complaint referenced five occasions where it either failed to respond or did not respond to the resident’s enquiries in a timely fashion. One of these occasions is referenced in the timeline above. It is noted the enquiry itself, about the timescale for crack monitoring, submitted around July 2020, was seemingly straightforward and could reasonably have been answered promptly. Based on the overall correspondence between the parties, the resident spent a significant amount of time and effort engaging with the landlord about the progress of the works. It is reasonable to conclude this was inconvenient.
87. Similarly, the landlord’s stage two response confirmed it was slow to update the insurer. Since little evidence was provided in respect of this delay, this assessment was unable to quantify the exact details. However, no evidence was seen to show a claim was ultimately raised with the insurer. It was therefore found the impact of this delay was limited. That said, the incident was found to conform to the pattern of communication described above.
88. Given the above identified delays and failures, this assessment found there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in respect of its handling of ongoing subsidence and the resulting damage to the building. Though it is acknowledged the landlord identified some of these delays and failures, during its complaint investigation, it failed to offer proportionate redress given the circumstances of the case.

The Landlord’s response to reports of ASB

89. In relation to the landlord’s response to reports of ASB from the neighbour, it is recognised the situation has been ongoing for some time. It has evidently caused distress to resident and his tenants. It is noted the timeline shows three separate sets of the resident’s tenants encountered issues with the neighbour. It is also understood the resident feels the landlord promised the upstairs flat would be let sensitively, based on problems with the previous occupant. However, this issue has not been addressed by the landlord’s formal complaint process. It is therefore beyond the scope of this assessment.
90. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
91. The timeline indicates the ASB issues initially centred around noise nuisance but ultimately became increasingly serious. Case law has shown that a landlord cannot be held accountable for noise nuisance that is non-deliberate, for example noise caused by poor sound insulation, because no nuisance arises due to the normal and ordinary use of premises and the landlord is not able to authorise it expressly. This is reflected in the advice given to the landlord by Environmental Health on 28 October 2020. The age of the property was also noted.
92. In evaluating the landlord’s response to the reported ASB, the above timeline was considered in conjunction with the landlord’s Tenants’ Guide. Based on the comparison, this assessment found the landlord’s overall response to be appropriate and in line with the information in the guide. This is because the evidence shows the landlord was actively engaged with the relevant parties throughout the above timeline and responded promptly to any reports, using the tools set out in the guide.
93. The landlord also referred to external agencies appropriately during the timeline. For example, it sought advice from Environmental Health within seven weeks of receiving the first audio evidence from the relevant tenant on 13 September 2020. By this time, the neighbour had already received a verbal warning and agreed a separate Acceptable Behaviour Agreement. This timescale can therefore be considered reasonable given the circumstances. This shows the landlord adopted an incremental approach and attempted to balance its responsibilities, to the involved parties, in line with the comments in its complaint correspondence.
94. The timeline confirms there were occasions when the landlord was unable to adopt a firmer approach without further action being agreed by either the involved agencies or the police. Nevertheless, it confirms the landlord was proactive in chasing updates, verifying reports and making suggestions to progress the case. For example, it asked the police to be involved in future meetings of the professionals to ensure the case was being coordinated effectively between the relevant supervisory bodies.
95. Given the above this assessment found the landlord’s response to reports of ASB was appropriate. Further, no information has been seen to show it breached any obligations contained in the lease agreement in respect of its handling of the ASB. The landlord’s recent update to the Ombudsman suggests it is continuing to monitor the situation and it is likely to take proportionate action, given the established pattern of behaviour, if the situation continues. It is understood this outcome may be disappointing given how difficult the situation has been for the resident and his tenants.

The landlord’s response to reports of a leak at the property

96. In its complaint responses, the landlord said the bathroom leak should have been fully resolved in July 2020. The timeline above supports this conclusion because it confirms, when they were raised on 14 September 2020, repairs to the dormer were treated as urgent and completed accordingly. It also shows the landlord should have been aware an urgent repair was required between 17 July 2020, when roof tiles were replaced, and 20 July 2020, when the resident relayed the roofer’s comments to the landlord. Had the repair been raised at this point it could have been completed before the end of the month in line with the landlord’s urgent repair timescales.
97. Given the above, this assessment identified an unreasonable delay of around seven weeks had occurred. The fact two opportunities to raise the works order were missed raises issues around the landlord’s coordination and handling of the repair. From the evidence seen, it is accepted the same leak reoccurred around two months later and the timing is noted. While this assessment cannot establish liability on the part of the landlord for the second leak, it found the landlord was correct to reimburse the resident for the cost of reinstating the electrics given these works were completed twice at the resident’s expense.
98. The timeline suggests the resident was given conflicting information about the repair on two occasions. Firstly, when he was told the repair was complete in July 2020, which the landlord acknowledged in its stage one response, and again when his appointment to reinstate the electrics was eventually agreed but ultimately cancelled in October 2020. This implies the resident incurred inconvenience because of the landlord’s response, which was not reflected in its offer to reimburse the cost of the second electrical reinstatement.
99. For example, the resident spent time arranging to have the lights reinstated and, either personally or through his tenants, facilitated the works. It is also reasonable to conclude the resident made similar arrangements to facilitate the cancelled appointment. As a result, the landlord should have recognised the inconvenience resulting from its response and addressed it accordingly.
100. Given the above identified delay, handling issues and failure to offer proportionate redress, this assessment found there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in respect of its response to reports of a leak at the property.

Complaint handling

101. The above timeline confirms the resident’s stage one complaint was not raised, and possibly not acknowledged, in accordance with the two working day timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. There was also a further delay in issuing the stage one response. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence the resident was notified of these delays in line with the landlord’s policy. Overall, the above represents a delay of around 12 working days.
102. Similarly, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence the resident’s formal complaint was acknowledged at stage two of the landlord’s procedure. There was also a further delay of 30 working days in issuing the stage two response. Again, there is no indication the landlord updated the resident on the progress of the complaint or that it gave him a revised response timescale.  Overall, the above identified delays amount to around 42 working days.
103. While it is acknowledged the complaint was complex and involved multiple different issues, the landlord should have updated the resident and set reasonable expectations around an alternative response timescale. Since delays and handling issues were a key aspect of the resident’s complaint, it would have been better for the resident if the landlord had adopted the approach outlined in its policy document.
104. The above timeline shows the landlord was aware of the delayed geo-technical investigations from around 1 December 2020. The landlord indirectly referenced this delay, in its stage two response on 18 February 2021, by saying it was dissatisfied with the results of testing, and further excavation was needed. However, the wording of the response suggests its complaint investigation did not identify this additional excavation represented an avoidable delay. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord overlooked, and failed to redress, this aspect of the case. That said, it is acknowledged the resident was unaware of the issue at this point, and the matter was not raised in either his original complaint or his escalation request.
105. This assessment considered the landlord’s complaint handling in conjunction with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Section 5.6. of the code says, “Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result”. The landlord identified multiple failures had occurred across both of its complaint responses. It also acknowledged the detrimental impact on the resident and his wife. However, it only offered the following redress: an apology; reimbursement for the cost of reinstating the bathroom lights; some internal learning activities and a broad commitment to keep the resident updated.
106. As a result, the remedies offered did not address the either the extent of the delays or the distress and inconvenience caused by either the landlord’s handling of the subsidence, or its response to its response to the leak. Given the circumstances, the landlord should have awarded proportionate redress including compensation in line with its remedies policy and the Complaint Handling Code. Given the above, this assessment found there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

107. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of:

a.     the landlord’s handling of ongoing subsidence and the resulting damage to the building.

3. the landlord’s response to reports of a leak at the property.
4. the landlord’s complaint handling.

108. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to reports of ASB from the resident or his tenants.

Reasons

109. There were multiple significant delays in carrying out identified or recommended works. The longest of these delays was around 13 months. Since remedial works were unable to begin until the results of monitoring were known, the delays hampered necessary structural repairs. There were persistent communication failures during the timeline and the landlord failed to offer proportionate redress overall.
110. The landlord engaged with multiple parties during the ASB timeline and adopted an incremental approach in line with toolkit defined in the Tenants’ Guide. It responded promptly to incidents and chased external agencies where necessary. It also made proactive suggestions to improve coordination between the involved parties, with a view to progressing the case.
111. The landlord missed two opportunities to raise an urgent repair in relation to the rotten dormer resulting in an unreasonable delay of around seven weeks. The resident was given conflicting information and the landlord failed to offer redress in relation to the inconvenience the resident was caused.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

112. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:

a. pay the resident a total of £500 in total compensation within four weeks comprising:

1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays and failures in its handling of subsidence and the resulting damage
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s response to reports of a leak
3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified above

This award is consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations for instances where failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behavior; to make adequate adjustments has occurred.

2. write to the resident with an update on the progress of subsidence monitoring and repair works. Give details of any further works that may be required to restore the building to an appropriate condition, along with an estimated completion timescale.

Recommendations

113. The landlord to raise a works order to inspect the communal stairwell, with a view to repairing any damage confirmed to be resulting from the leak. The landlord should contact the resident with its findings and any proposed actions resulting from the inspection.
114. The landlord to provide redress training to its complaint handling staff with reference to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This is to ensure proportionate redress, including compensation where appropriate, is being awarded.
115. The landlord should confirm its intentions regarding these recommendations to this service within four weeks of the date of this report.