Stoke-on-Trent City Council (202216660)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216660

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

16 November 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracks appearing in the walls of the property.
2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is two-bedroom, semi-detached house.
4. On 22 June 2022 the resident reported that a large crack had appeared in the wall of the property. The landlord’s repair records show that a number of appointments were undertaken between 27 June and 26 July 2022, in which it was highlighted that structural issues were apparent.
5. The resident made a formal complaint on 3 August 2022. He explained that he had raised concerns about hairline cracks in August 2018 when he moved in, and they had gradually gotten worse and cracks now ran all the way around the non-detached side of the property. He said that as a result, more and more decorating was required and he wanted to know what the landlord would do about all the decorating costs. In addition, he said that repair appointments kept getting re-booked with no communication from the contractors.
6. A structural engineer inspected the property on 27 September 2022 and their subsequent report to the landlord concluded that:
   1. The internal cracking was not serious and was a common occurrence when a roof had been retiled. Because the internal cracking was not structurally concerning and did not destabilise the walls, the plaster should be removed from the wall, the crack repointed, a stainless-steel mesh fixed across the crack and the wall re-plastered.
   2. The blown mortar and the cracking in the external gable wall was probably due to corrosion of the wall ties. The corroded wall ties should be exposed to check the amount of metal left after the removal of the rust. If the loss of metal was small then the metal should be treated with a rust inhibitor prior to the brickwork being replaced. If the loss of metal was significant then the metal should be treated and new ‘screw-in’ wall ties added before replacing the brickwork.
   3. Upon completion of the repairs, the whole of the gable wall should be repointed.
7. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 6 October 2022. It upheld the complaint on the basis that a structural engineer should have been requested to look at the issue sooner. It said that since the repair was logged in June 2022, there had been several missed appointments and it was sorry for the inconvenience caused. To resolve the matter, it confirmed that a referral had been made for a structural engineer to undertake a full inspection of the property and any remedial works that were needed would be completed accordingly.
8. The landlord’s repairs record shows that works were undertaken on 24 October, 11 November and 14 November 2022. The landlord concluded that the interior work had been completed to a high standard and the external work could now be undertaken as per the engineer’s report. The landlord provided the resident with a £160 decoration voucher.
9. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman as he remained dissatisfied with the time it had taken to schedule a structural engineer and how long it was taking to complete the works. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs, including its communication, and as an outcome he wanted the works to be finished and to be compensated accordingly.
10. In relation to the external repairs, the landlord has told the Ombudsman that:
    1. The pointing works were added to the external pointing programme for completion in the financial year 2023/24.
    2. To provide short term reassurance and ensuring ongoing protection from water ingress, it attended in July 2023 and carried out localised raking out and repointing works to the areas noted on the structural report. During this visit, no defects were noted to the exposed wall ties in the repointed areas.
    3. The programmed works team attended site in November 2023 as part of preparation for the full programmed repointing of the gable wall, and carried out an exploratory inspection. This found no issues with the wall ties.
    4. Full repointing of the gable wall is likely to be completed by the end of November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

11. As per the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property including the floors, walls and roof.
12. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy has two main categories of repair: emergency and routine. An emergency repair is described as when there is an immediate and serious risk to people or property, and should be attended to within two hours to repair or make safe. A routine repair is described as all other repairs that need to be carried out to remedy building or component failure and that cannot reasonably wait for a programme of cyclical, planned or investment works; these will be undertaken by mutually agreed appointment.
13. There is no indication from the information provided that the resident’s reports of cracks in the wall should have been considered an emergency repair, as there was no immediate health and safety risk. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat the repair as a routine repair.
14. In certain cases, such as this one, the nature of the matter means that a number of visits are required as the issue may be difficult to remedy in the first instance. This would not necessarily mean a failing on the landlord’s part. Nevertheless, a landlord would be required to ensure communication regarding the next steps and expectations was made clear and that the reported repairs were completed within a reasonable timeframe.
15. In this case, it is not disputed that there were missed opportunities on the landlord’s part that resulted in a delay in getting the matter resolved, and that the landlord’s communication was not always timely and clear. The landlord did not request the structural engineer until 13 September 2022, almost 3 months after it received the initial report about cracking. This was not a reasonable and timely response considering that there were structural issues that required further investigation.
16. Furthermore, the resident had to spend a significant amount of time chasing a resolution, which included the necessity to raise a formal complaint as well as be available for a number of repair appointments. There were also 3 missed appointments during July and August 2022. This caused a considerable amount of distress and inconvenience to the resident, along with time and trouble, and was a failing on the landlord’s part.
17. The structural engineer confirmed that the internal cracking was not a serious issue and the landlord completed the recommended internal repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Following this, the landlord provided the resident with a decorating voucher to cover the cost of the disturbed decorations, thereby putting the resident back in a position prior to the cracks appearing.
18. In relation to the external works, the structural engineer recommended inspection of the walls ties and repointing works to the entire gable wall. While it was reasonable for the landlord to place the repointing works on its programmed work schedule given the scale of the works, it is of concern that the localised repairs to ensure the property was watertight were not completed until July 2023. This was 10 months after the structural engineer identified the issues with the pointing.
19. Furthermore, the structural engineer’s report was clear in that the external issues were likely to be structural in nature and caused by the corrosion of the wall ties. Although the landlord says the wall ties were inspected in July 2023, it has not provided any evidence to confirm this, and no evidence has been provided to confirm that the wall ties have as yet been treated with rust inhibitor. Overall, the landlord has been slow to action these recommendations. This was a further failing by the landlord.
20. Although the landlord did recognise the failings in its initial handling of the repairs and offered an apology for the inconvenience caused in its stage 2 response, it should have also offered compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, to put things right the landlord has been ordered to pay £300 compensation to the resident for the failings in its handling of the repairs. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) which suggests payments of this amount where the landlord’s failures have had an adverse effect on the resident.

Complaint handling

21. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints fairly and effectively. It states that landlords must respond to complaints in writing, setting out the decision on the complaint and reasons for this, details of any outstanding actions, and how the complaint can be escalated.
22. The landlord’s records show that a written response was not provided at stage 1, but rather, by telephone. It is also noted that the resident complained to the landlord that he had to chase the person responding to the complaint for a response. The landlord’s record of the stage 1 response confirms that the complaint was not upheld and the repairs would be relogged as they had not been completed due to no access.
23. The landlord therefore failed to respond to the complaint in accordance with the complaint handling code as it failed to respond in writing. It also failed to properly address the concerns raised by the resident, including his request for clarification on the redecorating works needed in the property. It is also of concern that the reason for not upholding the complaint was due to no access being provided for the repairs. The evidence provided for this investigation does not support such a conclusion. Furthermore, the resident had to go to the time and trouble of escalating his formal complaint before the landlord took suitable action to progress the repair issues by arranging for a structural engineer to attend.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of cracks appearing in the walls of the property.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

26. The landlord is ordered to do the following:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £400 compensation broken down as follows:
       1. £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs.
       2. £100 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
    2. Inspect the property to ensure that the internal repairs remain effective. If any further repairs are required then the landlord should confirm this to the resident in writing and agree an appointment to complete the repairs.
    3. Complete the external repairs. This should include remedial works to the wall ties in accordance with the structural engineer’s report and full repointing of the gable wall.
    4. Review its handling of the repairs in this case and implement any necessary remedial action to ensure the same failings do not recur. A copy of the review’s findings should be provided to the Ombudsman.
    5. Review its complaint handling in this case and implement any necessary remedial action to ensure the same failings do not recur. A copy of the review’s findings should be provided to the Ombudsman.
27. Orders a and b should be completed within 4 weeks and orders c, d and e should be completed within 8 weeks.