Camden Council (202205170)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205170

Camden Council

27 October 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of subsidence;
2. request for repairs:
  1. to the boiler
  2. to the electrics
  3. to broken windows
3. reports of anti-social behaviour;
4. request for rehousing;
5. handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident previously rented a three-bedroomed maisonette from the landlord for eighteen years. In late 2013 the resident arranged with her landlord to downsize to her current property, a one-bedroomed flat in a converted Victorian house. She holds a secure tenancy which started in January 2014.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) sets out the landlord’s responsibilities to keep the structure of the building stable and in repair. The Act specifies that repairs must be carried out in a “reasonable” timeframe.
Under the Act, the landlord must also keep in repair the installations for gas and electricity. The tenancy agreement gives further detail on the landlord’s responsibilities regarding repairs to the resident’s property, which includes the gas, electricity and windows.
Under its repairs policy, the landlord categorises repairs as emergency, essential and non-essential. It says it will attend essential repairs within 35 working days. It attends emergency repairs within 24 hours, and this includes loss of heating and hot water during the months of October to May. It does not specify a timeframe for non-essential repairs.
Under common law, the resident is entitled to “quiet enjoyment” of her home. The landlord must facilitate this by carrying out necessary repairs.
The tenancy agreement also sets out the landlord’s responsibilities to investigate reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), and provide advice to affected residents. The landlord’s ‘anti-social behaviour ladder’ sets out the steps it takes to address ‘street activity’, including visiting the site, liaising with the police, and the different legal actions open to it depending on the severity.
The landlord’s housing allocation scheme uses a points-based system, whereby those with the highest number of points will be prioritised for any property they bid on. It gives ‘reasonable preference’ to those in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions, those who are homeless, and those who need to move due to a medical condition or disability, health or welfare reasons, or hardship.
The landlord operates a ‘First Choice for Downsizers’ scheme, which gives extra priority to those who are under-occupying and wish to move to a one or two-bedroomed property, and a payment if their home is re-let to a household ‘in need’.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out the stages of its complaints process. It will register and acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within two working days, and issue a response within 10 working days. Should an escalation be requested, it will acknowledge this within two working days and then provide a stage 2 response within 25 working days.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s records show the resident raised concerns regarding subsidence, and told it she had tripped on uneven paving in the garden, in 2016. The landlord has shared details of a structural survey “of the cracking”, which was carried out by a contracted surveyor on 29 November 2016. The report:
1. Said it was “readily apparent that structural movement and cracking has affected the rear of the house”, and concluded this was due to subsidence;
2. Explained the resident had redecorated when she moved in in 2013, and therefore the cracking that was visible in the interior of her property had taken place since then;
3. Highlighted several “large” trees growing near the property, and the fact the property was on London Clay soil. It concluded that the subsidence had been exacerbated by the dehydrating effects of the trees on the soil;
4. Noted the paving slabs to the front garden were uneven, and should be taken up and re-laid;
5. Recommended the landlord take the following actions:
  1. Monitoring studs to be fitted to the five “principal” cracks, and checked for movement every two months over the next year.
  2. A survey to be done of the vegetation and trees around the property, and tree surgery carried out as appropriate.
  3. Two trial pits to be dug, the soil inspected along with sample roots, and the profile of the foundations to be determined.
  4. A CCTV survey to be done of the underground drainage and drain lines, and any leaks identified to be fixed.
  5. After completing the above actions, to engage a structural engineer to design a suitable programme of remedial works, to permanently stabilise and repair the cracking to the property.
The parties have both advised this Service that further investigation and monitoring of the subsidence was carried out in 2017. There is a gap in activity, until 2019 when further investigation of the soil was carried out, and some trees around the property were removed.
The landlord’s records show the resident reported a problem with the room thermostat and boiler programmer on 5 September 2019. It attended and fixed the problem on 12 September 2019.
The landlord’s records show the resident made eight reports of loss of heating and/ or hot water between the start of December 2019 and 20 February 2020.
The landlord attended on each occasion, and carried out several adjustments, including increasing the pressure in the system, changing the pressure sensor switch, turning the timer switch on, draining the system, and fitting a primary circuit board (PCB). It arranged for the boiler manufacturer to replace the divertor valve.
The landlord’s records show the matter was escalated to its contractor on or around 22 February 2020. A visit was carried out on this day, it carried out some adjustments and identified the boiler had a fault which required a specialist. The operative left a fan heater with the resident.
On or around 24 February 2020 the resident then called the landlord “annoyed that her heating system [had] stopped working”. She requested the landlord provide her with its record of the repairs history of her boiler from 2019 to that date. The landlord noted that the resident told it “she wants no more visits from operatives, only people in positions of power due to ongoing issues”. She told the landlord she wanted the boiler either fixed or replaced.
The landlord’s records indicate its contractor attended the resident’s property on 25 February 2020 and was not given access. It reattended on 28 February 2020 and fitted a ‘flow and return’ temperature sensor.
On 13 March 2020 the resident again reported the boiler as not working. The landlord attended that day and increased the pressure.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that at this point it had noted that the issue with the boiler had been recurring, and an internal request was raised for an inspection to determine if it needed replacement.
The landlord attended a further five time between 29 March 2020 and 23 April 2020, with the resident having lost heating and/ or hot water each time. It topped up the pressure, and at the last visit it noted that it was not possible to check the pipes for leaks because they went into the ground.
On 4 May 2020 the resident made a further report of loss of heating and/ or hot water. She again expressed her dissatisfaction with the frequency with which her boiler had broken down, and asked for it to be looked at “more scrupulously”. The landlord advised the resident it was up to its contractor to confirm when a boiler needed replacement, however it noted it may be necessary for a supervisor to attend and carry out “more rigorous” checks. The landlord’s notes indicate an operative was sent the same day, and again re-pressured the system. The operative looked for leaks, and tried knocking at the flat below to check whether the resident there had observed any leaks, but there was no answer.
The landlord’s contractor attended again on 5 May 2020 and disconnected the filling loop. It gained access to the flat below, and found no sign of a leak. It set up a courtesy call with the resident for 12 May 2020.
Also on 5 May 2020, the landlord’s contractor emailed it to advise the resident had told its operative that the building suffered from severe subsidence and was being monitored for movement by the landlord. The contractor advised the landlord that it was possible that the movement of the building had caused stress on the pipework, causing it to fracture, which in turn could be causing the recurring low pressure fault in her heating system.
The contractor attended on 12 May 2020, and drained and recharged the expansion vessel, replaced the pressure release valve (PRV), added ‘leak sealer’, refilled and capped off the filling loop. It noted there had been no pressure loss since its previous visit.
On 13 October 2020 the resident reported that her bedroom window had become loose, the putty was coming away and she was worried the window would fall out.
On 26 October 2020 the landlord attended and renewed the putty to the bedroom window, eased and adjusted two windows in the living room, and sealed an area under the bedroom window sill after noting that there was an “air draft” between the sill and the brick wall.
On 15 July 2021 the resident reported that the sash for her living room window had snapped and her bedroom window was in need of ease and adjustment.
On 27 July 2021 the landlord carried out a partial repair to the sash windows in the living room, and noted that the cord needed to be renewed.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 1 August 2021, via its website. She explained she was dissatisfied because:
1. She had not been aware there were major repairs works ongoing at the property when she agreed to move in 2014;
2. The property had subsidence, including in external walls and tiled floors, which the landlord had started to monitor in 2017. The resident explained the cracks in the wall had led to high heating bills which she struggled to afford, had allowed pests (insects) to nest, and allowed damp to enter when it rained. The resident said she had been injured after she tripped on the even floor in the porch, and she was afraid her grandchildren could be injured by falling furniture;
3. Her boiler had broken down more than 13 times since 2019. At times the resident had had to wait seven days for parts to be delivered, before it was fixed. She found the radiator valves too stiff to operate. She had been told that the underfloor pipes had leaks, but would not be repaired. There was a faulty gas connection in her kitchen, which had been sealed off, and now she could only use electric for cooking;
4. The electric wiring in the flat was faulty, but the resident had been told by one of the landlord’s operatives that wider faults could not be located without stripping and rewiring the whole flat. The resident was often unable to cook or charge her electrical devices. Her valuables had been permanently damaged by blown fuses. From 2015-19 she had been unable to have WiFi due to the electrical faults. The resident told the landlord she had become isolated and had been unable to look for work, and she was concerned about the potential fire risks;
5. Rubbish and drug paraphernalia had been thrown into the resident’s garden. Once, when she was in the garden with her grandson, large planks were thrown in and she had been traumatised. The resident’s fence between her garden and the estate had been broken, and her plants had been damaged and unearthed. The back door to the building, and the banister, had been smashed, and a knife had been left in the communal hallway;
6. The resident’s bedroom window sash had snapped and she had been told it would not be repaired until 15 September 2021, which meant she would also not be able to open it until then. The windows in the property didn’t work properly, slamming down or being difficult to open. The resident felt trapped, without fresh air “during covid”, and worried about the fire safety risk;
7. In 2020 the resident had found out about Housing Moves, a website used by social housing residents in London to transfer, which gave downsizing residents priority and allowed them to move to a property with one extra bedroom. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not advised her of this when she downsized to her current property;
8. The situation caused her to be “stressed, anxious, uncomfortable, unsafe and vulnerable”. The resident considered herself to be homeless under the legal definition;
9. The resident asked to be given sufficient points to transfer to another property.
On or around 27 August 2021 the resident reported a further loss of her heating and hot water. The landlord attended on 27 August 2021 and refilled the pressure.
On 15 September 2021 the landlord attended and fixed the living room sash, replaced the cord, and repaired the beading to the window.
The landlord’s records demonstrate it had a “backlog” of complaints, and it did not start processing the resident’s complaint until 5 October 2021, when it also issued her with an acknowledgement.
The landlord’s records indicate that on or around 14 October 2021, it raised a job for a full inspection of the boiler and radiators at the resident’s flat. Its records show it carried out a survey for a new boiler on 15 October 2021, and requested a quote from its contractor on 28 October 2021.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 28 October 2021. It:
1. Did not uphold the resident’s complaint;
2. Explained it was at the consultation stage of its work to remedy the subsidence. It needed to liaise with leaseholders regarding costs, and would liaise with all residents to explain the impact on their individual properties. It did not expect any residents would need to move out during the works;
3. Confirmed it had record of reports from the resident regarding her boiler since the start of her tenancy, and that it had attended and carried out appropriate repairs each time. Its contractor had attended on 15 October 2021 and recommended her boiler be replaced with a combination boiler. Its contractor was in the process of submitting a quote for this, and would contact her to arrange the work;
4. Could see that it was called out in 2018 to repair the electrics and had resolved the issues. It connected her cooker in December 2018. It had no further reports of issues, but would attend on 17 November 2021 to carry out a full electric check;
5. Had repaired the broken windows on 15 September 2021;
6. Had asked the relevant team for more information regarding the anti-social behaviour the resident reported, but had not received a response. It would follow this up and ask that the resident received a direct response from the team;
7. Understood that the resident’s property did have an extra room because her daughter did not move with her in 2014, but if she wanted to move she could submit a rehousing application. It would look at the information she provides to determine whether it considered her adequately housed;
8. Advised the resident how to escalate the complaint to ‘review stage’ if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the staff member who had been contacted by the complaints handler regarding the ASB did not take any action at this point.
On 7 November 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended to survey for a new combi boiler, and identified her existing one was about 16 years old. It provided a quote to the landlord.
On 22 November 2021 the resident sent the landlord a letter, requesting it review the decision not to uphold her complaint. She explained:
1. It was positive that the landlord was consulting with leaseholders, but she was disappointed with its lack of communication with her. She had last heard from it in May 2021. Its complaint response did not provide a timescale that any work would be completed in, and the situation was causing her anxiety;
2. Its complaint response had not considered the length of time taken to resolve the issues she had raised. She had first reported the subsidence issues in 2015, and it took until January 2017 for monitoring to be started. It was 2019 before work to reduce mature trees near the property was carried out;
3. It was her opinion that her property did not meet the decent homes standard. Its complaint response had “disregarded” the fact that the property was let to her when it needed major repairs, and she was not told until after she signed the tenancy agreement;
4. The landlord’s contractor attended to inspect the electrics on 15 October 2021, but she had not been updated on progress. An electrical survey had been scheduled for 17 November 2021, and had been postponed until 24 November 2021. She highlighted that she had complained on 1 August 2021, and felt the landlord was taking too long to resolve the issue;
5. The window to the rear of the property had been repaired, but the complaint response had failed to address the points she had raised about the windows either slamming down or being stiff to open;
6. The resident had received communication from the landlord on 17 November 2021 regarding the removal of communal smoke alarms, but otherwise had heard nothing regarding the anti-social behaviour she had reported, and did not know if it had taken her reports seriously;
7. She again asked that she be awarded sufficient points to be able to move.
The landlord tried calling the resident three times between 18 November and 1 December 2021, left her answerphone messages each time and sent a letter to her, with the aim of booking in an appointment to install a new boiler. It has advised it closed the job down on 15 December 2021 because it did not receive a response from her.
The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement of her stage 2 complaint on 17 December 2021, and apologised for its delay in doing this.
The landlord carried out electric checks at the resident’s flat on 6 January 2022 and noted a faulty cooker ring and melted kettle lead. It attended again between 7 and 11 January 2022 and replaced the residual current device (RCD).
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaints response to the resident on 18 January 2022. It:
1. Partially upheld the resident’s complaint;
2. Apologised for the standard of its communication since the stage 1 complaint response;
3. Advised that since it last communicated with the resident on 15 December 2021, it had experienced some delays to repairs, due to restrictions it had put in place in response to increasing cases of Covid and the increased risk in transmission and infection. It confirmed these restrictions were lifted on 13 January 2022 and it was currently working to clear the backlog;
4. Apologised for the delay and confirmed it would update the resident on all outstanding repairs within the next 10 days;
5. Confirmed its major repairs manager would update the resident on its plans regarding the subsidence;
6. Advised it could not investigate the resident’s reports of “anti-social behaviour from members of the public, including other residents”, through its complaint process. Its housing officer would be in touch with the resident to discuss the problems she had reported with other residents. If the resident was dissatisfied with the service the housing officer provided, then she would be able to submit a complaint through its new website portal;
7. Advised it could not award extra points for the resident’s rehousing application through its complaint process, but the resident could contact its housing advisor if she wished to discuss her application;
8. Signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
On 28 January 2022 the landlord attended the resident’s property and replaced a “condense hose” after she reported a leak from the boiler.
The landlord’s internal records show it had completed electrical works by 8 February 2022, and carried out an ease and adjustment of the windows in the resident’s front room on 4 March 2022.
On 20 April 2022 the landlord’s subsidence contractor produced a report detailing the findings of a visual inspection it carried out on 23 March 2022:
1. It had been able to review a survey carried out in 2019, an associated report of investigations carried out in 2017, and a CCTV survey carried out in 2020;
2. It carried out internal and external examinations of the building;
3. The building is surrounded by mature trees, some close to the building, and there were signs that some had been reduced or removed;
4. The report included photos and noted “significant” cracks and signs of past movement that had been observed around the external areas of the building;
5. The chimney stacks were observed to be leaning;
6. Photos were included to illustrate internal cracking that had appeared;
7. Sloping internal floors were observed, but were suspected to have occurred shortly after the construction of the building;
8. The report from 2019 specified that the building was affected by subsidence, caused by the “desiccation” of the clay soil it stood on. This was attributed to the effects of tree roots, and a recommendation was made that trees within a “zone of influence” should be reduced or removed. This was to be followed by a period of monitoring the cracks;
9. The investigation in 2017 had also identified “relatively shallow” foundations;
10. There was a possibility of subsidence causing further damage if work was not carried out;
11. It recommended monthly monitoring be undertaken for the next six months, to determine whether the foundations had stabilised. If they had, then structural repairs could be carried out. If movement was observed, it recommended underpinning was put in place, the sewer to the rear should be moved, and the chimneys should be rebuilt.
On 23 June 2022 the resident reported the sash to the window in her front room was broken and she could not open it.
On 30 June 2022 the resident reported that the electric switch on the wall for her cooker was not working.
On 14 July 2022 the resident reported that her bathroom window was stuck and would not close, and the landlord repaired this on 19 July 2022.
The landlord’s records show it attended and replaced the cooker switch on 21 July 2022.
The landlord inspected the front room window on 22 July 2022.
The resident again reported a loss of heating on 4 August 2022, and the landlord attended the same day and re-synced the thermostat.
The landlord replaced the front room window sash on 31 August 2022.
The landlord has advised that the staff member who had been asked to contact the resident about the ASB did this in October 2022. It said the resident advised this staff member the ASB was “historic” and had taken place in 2019. The landlord recognised this contact should have taken place in 2021. It advised that it has checked its systems for record of ASB at the block, and has only found a complaint about noise in 2018 and 2019 from a different resident.
The resident again reported the electric sockets in her kitchen were loose, coming away, and tripping on 3 February 2023. The landlord’s records indicate it carried out a check of her electrics in response.
There is a further record of a repair raised and attended on 13 February 2023, in which the landlord re-fixed the electric spur box to the wall and checked the resident’s appliances. It advised her to replace her cooker after identifying it had a faulty ring.
In July 2023, the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman Service that her landlord has now given her priority points for a transfer. She remained unhappy in her current home and was keen to move away.
The resident confirmed that after it issued the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord had carried out some further repairs to and checks of the windows, electrics and gas at her flat. She planned to replace her cooker, as the landlord had advised her that the problem with the electrics was due to a fault with the appliance, rather than the wiring in the flat.
She explained her current priority was the subsidence, and she reported that the landlord had not updated her to explain what action it was taking, if any, and whether she would need to move out temporarily whilst any works were carried out. The subsidence was continuing to cause her concern, and she was keen to understand what timescales the landlord would be working to.
Also in July 2023, the landlord supplied the Ombudsman Service with an update on its actions:
1. It would continue the level monitoring of the building until September 2023. If the monitoring showed the building had stabilised, it would start the underpinning work;
2. It planned to carry out work to improve the windows at the same time as the underpinning, which it said would be similar in approach to its ‘Better Homes’ programme;
3. One of its managers had contacted the resident in response to her reports of anti-social behaviour, and advised her to report any future incidents to them, or the landlord’s mobile patrol team, who would then investigate and take appropriate action.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence

It is clear that the landlord was told that subsidence was affecting the property in November 2016. The landlord appears to have undertaken the recommended period of crack monitoring during 2017, but it was not until 2019 that any activity to address the subsidence was taken, when it removed some trees near the building.
It appears to have undertaken the recommended CCTV investigation in 2020, and to have consulted the leaseholders within the building regarding some works to remedy the subsidence in 2021. This Service has not been provided with evidence of either of these activities.
After another gap of activity, the landlord had a further survey conducted in spring 2022, and was advised to carry out further monitoring of the building’s movement over the next six months. It is not clear why the landlord has extended this for nearly a whole extra year, until September 2023.
Ultimately, the landlord has taken six years to complete its monitoring, which it reasonably could have conducted within 18 months. This is an inappropriate delay and a failure to fulfil its responsibilities under the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) to keep the building stable and in a state of repair.
The landlord’s repairing responsibilities still applied throughout the subsidence monitoring period. It has not provided any evidence of work taken to address the issues the resident raised regarding the effects of the subsidence: water ingress, nesting insects, having to spend more to heat the property, her fears over unstable flooring, and the fact she tripped and injured herself on uneven slabs in the porch.
In 2016 its contractor recommended work was carried out to level the paving at the front of the building, however there has not been evidence provided to confirm this was done. It is noted that its operative did seal a drafty area under the bedroom window sill on 26 October 2020.
These issues illustrated the serious nature of the subsidence in the building, and the impact it was having on the resident. She was unable to exercise quiet enjoyment of her home throughout this period, which has stretched to seven years and demonstrates severe maladministration on the part of the landlord.
The resident reported being “left in the dark” by the landlord, and she had to spend time and trouble in chasing updates from it. She has described the additional distress, time and trouble this caused her. The landlord has provided the Service with little evidence of communication with the resident regarding the subsidence, and on the basis of what we have seen, we have reached the view that it did not provide her with appropriate updates.
The landlord compounded the impact of its poor communication, when it excluded the resident from details of the plans it had communicated to her neighbours. It would have been more reasonable for it to have updated all residents within the block when it started consultations with the leaseholders.
The landlord has explained to the Ombudsman Service that it is still monitoring the movement in the property, and will know whether it has stabilised in September 2023. It is appropriate that it is looking to underpin the property if it has stabilised. If movement is still observed at the end of this monitoring period, it would be appropriate for the landlord to examine what further steps it should take to ensure it meets the requirements under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985). It should seek appropriate, suitably qualified, professional guidance on this.
It would be reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation for the time the resident has had to live with the effects of the subsidence. A reasonable calculation would be the value of 20% of her weekly rent, over the seven years since she reported the subsidence. The landlord should also compensate her for the distress she has experienced. Orders are made to that effect below, along with orders to address the immediate repairs issues.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the boiler

The landlord’s records demonstrate it did respond and repair the resident’s boiler each time she reported it had broken. However, the frequency with which this occurred suggested the repairs and adjustments were not sufficient to keep the heating system in working order for a reasonable length of time. This was a failure by the landlord to meet its responsibilities under the resident’s tenancy, its repairs policy, and the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), to keep the installations for gas and hot water in repair, and constitutes maladministration.
By treating the repairs as one-off jobs, to be attended and then closed down, the landlord risked missing the underlying causes of the issues. The system often lost pressure, and in May 2020 the landlord’s contractor suggested this could be due to damaged pipework, caused by the movement of the building. The landlord had already been advised by its contractor that there may be leaks in the pipework underground, and that it could not access these to check. There is no evidence that the landlord linked this to its ongoing investigation of the subsidence, or the opportunities this presented to carry out checks of the pipes.
After the resident reported at least 12 instances of loss of heating and/ or hot water over a period of six months, in March 2020 the landlord identified that it might need to fit a new boiler. The resident herself had requested this in February 2020.
It is unacceptable, then, that the landlord did not carry out a survey to assess whether it could replace the boiler until October 2021, with a further survey carried out in November 2021. That was a delay of 19 months, during which the resident reported at least nine more instances of heating loss. It is surprising that it closed down the job to install the replacement boiler so quickly after not hearing back from the resident, given it had record of her complaints and requests to have a new one installed, and even when it attended for further breakdowns and “servicing”, that it did not look to set up the replacement with the resident.
The resident reports that she was told by the landlord that it was no longer a priority because her boiler had been repaired. It is noted the boiler is relatively old, being around 18 years at this point.
It would be reasonable for the landlord to compensate for the time and trouble caused to the resident due to the high numbers of breakdowns she experienced and its failures to fully investigate the causes, and an order is made to that effect below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the electrics

The landlord’s inspection and repair of the resident’s electrics was completed in 133 days, well outside the 35 working day window given to non-urgent repairs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the inspection to be urgent, due to the potential hazards unsafe electrics present. An order is made below for the landlord to compensate the resident for the failure to meet its repair timescales as set out in its policy.
Following its inspection, the landlord provided the resident with appropriate advice regarding her cooker, and it replaced a unit which will improve the safety of the wiring at the property. The resident reports she is now satisfied the issues with the electrics have been resolved.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the windows

The landlord missed the resident’s reports that she found the windows difficult to operate in its initial complaint response. When she escalated her complaint, the resident explained that the ongoing pandemic made it more important that she was able to open her windows. It is clear that she has had to make multiple reports of her windows becoming inoperable, and again this prevented her quiet enjoyment of her home.
The landlord reports that it is now looking into a longer-term upgrade of the windows. It plans to carry this out at the same time as underpinning the building, and this appears to be a reasonable step to reduce the incidence of problems with the windows in future.
The landlord described the work it is planning to carry out as similar to its ‘Better Homes’ programme. Its website sets out that this is a five-year programme of upgrades to the landlord’s stock, and its publicly available pages give details of the work planned at different estates, including what the impact will be on residents, what they can expect, and an update on the current status of the work.
The landlord’s Better Homes pages on its website provide a good model of communication with residents regarding major works being planned and carried out at their estates. It would be ideal for the landlord to now use it as a guide to produce a similar update for the resident regarding its plans for the windows, how long this will take and what the impact on her will be.
For the inconvenience caused by the repeated failure of the windows, it would be reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation, and an order is made to that effect below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour

The landlord took 15 months to contact the resident regarding the ASB she had reported in her complaint. This was an inappropriate delay in establishing the nature and severity of the issues, and the potential for harm to the resident.
The resident has explained to the Housing Ombudsman Service that she does not feel personally targeted by the ASB, but she does feel the impact of the activities close to her home.
The resident has advised that the landlord has taken some action to address ASB in her block since it issued the stage 2 complaint response; one neighbour has been evicted and another moved out, which has improved the situation. The landlord looked into an issue with fire alarms being activated at unsocial hours, and carried out work to make them safe. The resident has advised that the landlord is addressing other issues on a case-by-case basis as they arise.
The resident is currently satisfied with the landlord’s actions, and it was appropriate that the landlord provided her with guidance as to how to report any further issues to the relevant staff members. The landlord is encouraged to continue to have reference to its responsibilities as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement and the steps in its ASB ‘ladder’ when managing any future reports from the resident.
For the distress caused by its failure to respond for 15 months, it would be appropriate for the landlord to compensate the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing

It was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident as to how to apply for rehousing, and the limits of what it could address through its complaints process. The resident is satisfied that she has now been awarded priority points for a move based on medical need, having completed an application.
The landlord’s allocations scheme does not specify that downsizers must be given the option of moving to a property with a spare bedroom, and given the level of demand it must manage for its housing stock, it is reasonable that it offered the resident a one-bedroomed property when she downsized in 2014.
The Housing Ombudsman Service has not seen any records establishing that there was awareness of subsidence or other repairs issues prior to the resident moving in to the property, beyond the evident fact of the building’s age.
There is nothing that the Ombudsman Service has seen that suggests unreasonable behaviour on the part of the landlord in its approach to the resident’s transfer to the property, and there was no maladministration in its response to her request to move out.

Handling of the associated complaint

It took the landlord 46 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint, and a further 17 working days to issue its stage 1 response. It took 19 working days to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint, and a further 19 days to issue its response.
Even though it acknowledged the delays in its stage 2 response, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to compensate the resident for the additional time and trouble caused by these failures. This would have been in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and guidance on remedies, and an order is now made to that effect below.
Despite the lengthy turnaround time, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not fully address the issues the resident had raised, including the stiff windows, the ASB, and the distress the resident was experiencing due to the effects of the subsidence. She told the landlord she felt it was not taking her concerns seriously, and it is not surprising that the resident felt the need to escalate her complaint.
The landlord missed an opportunity to assess whether anything had gone wrong with its response to the ASB, due to lack of oversight from the complaint handler regarding the follow-up work they requested at stage 1.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord simply said it could not investigate the resident’s reports of ASB through its complaints process. It did advise the resident she could submit another complaint if she was dissatisfied once a member of the ASB team contacted her, which was an unnecessary inconvenience and represented another missed opportunity to capture any relevant learning from the resident’s experience to date.
The landlord took a similar approach in its response to the resident’s complaint regarding the length of time taken to resolve the subsidence, and the fears she had for her safety. It appeared to treat her complaint as a service request for information, and again failed to assess whether it had got anything wrong, could learn from its mistakes, or should do anything to put things right.
The net result of the superficial and incomplete complaint responses at both stages was time and trouble caused to the resident in having to escalate her complaint internally and externally of the landlord, and distress at the lack of acknowledgement of the worries she was experiencing. Its failure to see that it had got things wrong meant it did not identify where redress was due to the resident, or where remedies were needed.
This constitutes maladministration on the part of the landlord, and orders are made below to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was severe maladministration on the part of the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of subsidence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the boiler, electrics and broken windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has taken far too long to address the underlying subsidence, and the knock-on repairs issues it has caused. It was told subsidence was present in 2016, and it is imperative the landlord now decide on a course of action to finally stabilise the building.
The landlord’s lack of communication and updates to the resident added to her distress, and it should ensure it keeps her informed of progress from now on.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not fully examine what had happened, and as such were incomplete. This left the resident feeling as if her concerns were not taken seriously and prolonged the poor level of service she has received, as it did not learn from its mistakes along the way.
The resident experienced loss of heating and/ or hot water on an excessive number of occasions, but the landlord treated the repairs as one-offs for too long. It eventually identified that it should replaced the aged boiler, and yet this has not taken place. It did not appear to join the dots with its work to look into the subsidence and movement of the building, both as a cause of the issues and as an opportunity to check the underground pipework.
The landlord has investigated the electrics and has carried out a repair, as well as making recommendations regarding the resident’s appliances. It did not do this quickly enough, but the resident is happy with the outcome now it is complete.
The windows present an obstacle to the resident’s quiet enjoyment of her home, and it is right that they are now replaced. The landlord must improve its communication to the resident regarding this issue.
There is no evidence that the landlord acted unreasonably in its response to the resident’s previous transfer, and it has awarded her reasonable medical priority points for her current rehousing application.
The landlord should have contacted the resident far sooner regarding the ASB. Without doing this, it could not be confident of the potential for harm to her. Once it did understand the issues, the landlord has offered appropriate signposting advice and has been taking steps to tackle the issues it is responsible for.
The landlord did not respond to the core issues of the resident’s complaints, meaning it did not identify several serious failures. Of the failures it did identify, it did not offer appropriate redress or remedies.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within two weeks of the date of this report, an appropriately senior member of staff (of at least director level) at the landlord should contact the resident to apologise for the impact of its failings and the upset it has caused her. It should provide a copy of this to the Ombudsman when complete.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to directly pay the resident a total of £12,644.67 compensation, made up as follows:
1. £10,409.67 for the time the resident had to live with the effects of the subsidence (the resident’s weekly rent is £142.99, and this figure is equivalent to 20% of that, across seven years);
2. £500 for the distress the resident experienced when these effects went unacknowledged;
3. £660 for the time and trouble caused by the high number of breakdowns in her heating the resident experienced, and the impact of the landlord’s failure to fully investigate the cause/s;
4. £200 for the distress caused by its delay in investigating the electrics;
5. £150 for the inconvenience caused by the repeated failure of the windows;
6. £375 for the distress caused by its failure to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB (calculated at £25 per month across 15 months);
7. £150 for the time and trouble caused by its delays in acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints, and in issuing a stage 1 response;
8. £200 for the impact of its incomplete complaint investigation and responses at stage 1 and 2.
It is ordered that the landlord continue to compensate the resident 20% of her rent, until the subsidence is repaired or her tenancy ends. The landlord must confirm to us it will put arrangements in place to ensure this will be done.
It is ordered that within two weeks of the date of this report, an appropriate member of staff visit the resident to confirm to the following details of its plan to address the subsidence:
1. Details of the level monitoring it is currently carrying out;
2. When and how it will communicate its assessment of the results when it ends the monitoring in September 2023;
3. What the work to underpin the building will involve, what the impact will be on the resident (including whether it can be completed with her in situ) and how long it is expected to take;
4. What it will do if the building has not stabilised, and what timescales it will work to;
5. The landlord should provide confirmation of the visit and the details discussed to the Ombudsman Service, when complete.
Within the next two weeks, the landlord should also attend and inspect the resident’s property for:
1. Water ingress through the cracks;
2. Heat loss through the cracks;
3. Trip hazards in the paving to the front of the building.
Once it has carried out the above inspections, it should then ensure it remedies any hazards or repairs falling under its responsibilities, if any are identified. It should ensure it promptly advises the resident of the outcome of its inspections and the details of any work it proposes to complete.
At the same time, it should also provide the resident with clarification on the reasons it has not taken further action to date, ascertain the current situation, and provide appropriate advice and signposting regarding:
1. The nesting insects;
2. The uneven internal flooring.
Within the next two weeks the landlord should make arrangements with the resident to replace her boiler with a new combi boiler, and ensure this is completed within a reasonable timeframe. It is suggested that this should not be longer than six weeks.
Again within the next two weeks, the landlord should provide the resident with an update regarding its plans to carry out work to the windows of the building. It is recommended that it uses its Better Homes information template as a guide, including details of what work it will carry out and the expected impact on the resident.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers what training it can offer its complaints staff, with the following areas of focus:
1. How to differentiate between a complaint and a service request;
2. The Housing Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies;
3. How to ensure appropriate learning is identified and implemented from complaint investigations.
It is recommended the landlord use the Better Homes pages on its website as an example of good practice in terms of communication regarding major works at its properties, for any future projects.
It is recommended that the landlord consider whether it can signpost the resident to any assistance to replace her cooker, especially the schemes and funds it administers such as the household support fund.
It is recommended that the landlord consider what it can do to prevent the recurrence of its failure to respond to the resident’s ASB report in a timely way. This might include visibility of cases on a shared database, or other targeted support and monitoring for its ASB team.