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

Thurrock Council (202128098)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128098

Thurrock Council

16 August 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of structural issues at the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident’s partner is representing the resident for this complaint.
  2. The resident’s partner submitted a complaint to the landlord on 15 November 2021. He stated that they have had ongoing issues with internal and external cracks at their property. He explained they would like the issue to be rectified or to be moved to another property.
  3. The resident’s partner has stated that they have been experiencing structural issues and internal and external cracks at the property since September 2017.
  4. On 29 December 2021, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord apologised to the resident’s partner for failing to action his email dated 15 November as a complaint. It also apologised for the delays and lack of communication regarding providing updates to the resident. The landlord stated a full review of all previous inspections and works undertaken so far has confirmed that the findings were consistent with historical monitoring outcomes. It was confirmed that the repairable cracks were not due to structural defects, but due to thermal movements in line with building research establishment guidelines. The landlord explained it would re-arrange for a surveyor to re-assess the current conditions since the last inspection due to the amount of time which had passed since the last inspection.
  5. On 11 February 2022, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response. The landlord stated following a recent surveyor inspection, no significant progressive structural movement to the property had been identified. However, it explained that some works had been identified to repair the internal cracks in the property. The landlord stated it would arrange for its contractors to repair the cracks. It also explained that, as a precautionary measure, it had arranged for a CCTV survey to be carried out.
  6. The resident partner remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident’s desired outcome is for the landlord to find and offer the resident and her partner alternative accommodation.
  7. On 26 May 2023, the landlord contacted the Ombudsman and provided an update in relation to its action taken in response to the reported structural issues. The landlord explained that following the inspection by the structural engineer, it was recommended for two additional forms of monitoring to take place. The first, was to monitor the property over several months to cover the different seasons of the year. The second was for trial pits to be dug at the front and rear of the property to allow for ground and soil analysis to be completed. The trial pits were dug on 15 August 2022 and were recommended to be reviewed over a period of a year. The engineer also fitted ‘tell tales’ to monitor any movement through the monitoring period. The landlord explained that it was continuing with the recommendations, and it would continue to undertake interim remedial repairs as and when required to do so. It stated the results of the monitoring and trail pits would determine the next steps to be taken regarding remedial works.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of structural issues to the property.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s partner has stated that there has been an ongoing issue with the structure of the property, including wall cracks, since September 2017. This report will not investigate the structural issues dating back this far.The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out the rules which govern our service.Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme explains that this service cannot investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within six months of the matters arising. The resident’s partner submitted his complaint to the landlord in November 2021; therefore, this report will focus on events from approximately six months prior to November 2021 and onwards.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is required to maintain the structure and exterior of the property to a good standard of repair. This includes outside and inside structural or party walls and building foundations below ground.
  3. The repairs policy also explains that the landlord will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and urgent repairs within 5 working days. It also states that routine repairs will be responded to within 20 working days. The policy explains that repairs to hairline cracks or plaster work less than 1m2 is classed as a routine repair.
  4. The resident’s partner submitted a complaint to the landlord in November 2021 regarding ongoing issues with the structure of the property and wall cracks. For contextual reasons, the Ombudsman has acknowledged that prior to the complaint submission, the landlord’s surveyor had visited the resident’s property on several occasions between 2018-2019. The landlord also carried out works to repair the cracks in July and October 2019. It is acknowledged that there were delays with the landlord in monitoring the issues at the property due to Covid-19 restrictions which came into place in March 2020. The Ombudsman recognises that the delay due to Covid-19 restrictions would have been out of the landlord’s control.
  5. The landlord explained in its stage one complaint response sent in December 2021, that it would arrange for a further property inspection to be undertaken by its surveyor. It stated the surveyor would re-assess the current conditions since the last inspection and identify if there were any new locations of concern or monitoring. The surveyor carried out the inspection on 27 January 2022. The Ombudsman believes this was a reasonable step to take, as a considerable amount of time had passed since the last inspection was completed. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to obtain an up to date understanding of the issues related to the resident’s property.
  6. Following the surveyor inspection which took place on 27 January 2022, it was identified that there was no significant progressive movement to the property. However, it was identified that there was work required to repair the internal cracks in the property. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 14 April 2022 to repair the cracks. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to arrange for its contractor to attend more quickly than it did. However, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord did offer the resident an appointment on 23 March 2022, but the resident was unavailable. Whilst there may be legitimate reasons why residents are not available for appointments, the landlord would not be responsible for any delays this may cause. Therefore, some of the delay was outside of the landlord’s control.
  7. The landlord arranged for its contractors to carry out a CCTV survey of the drains. There were no defects identified with the drainpipes and no further works required to the drain.
  8. When the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property in April 2022, it was identified that there had been areas of movement since the last surveyor inspection in January 2022. Due to the identified areas of movement, the landlord believed it was appropriate to arrange for a structural engineer to inspect the resident’s property. The Ombudsman believes this was a reasonable step to take, as a structural engineer is qualified and has expert knowledge to inspect the structure of a property and confirm whether the property is safe to live in.
  9. The structural engineer visited the resident’s property in May 2022. The structural engineer’s report concluded that the house was dropping towards the front with a degree of differential movement which was resulting in cracks developing. The structural engineer recommended that further investigative works were to be carried out before any remedial works were to be completed.
  10. The landlord agreed to carry out all the recommendations that the structural engineer suggested. The Ombudsman believes this was reasonable and appropriate, as the landlord was entitled to rely on the expert opinion of the structural engineer. The Ombudsman cannot say this opinion is incorrect as our service have not seen evidence from a similarly qualified expert which contradicts it. The monitoring period of the trial pits is still ongoing and is due to finish around 15 August 2023. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out any necessary remedial works when it receives the results from the monitoring of the trial pits. The landlord should also continue to monitor any trees or vegetation contributing to the structural movement. These works should be carried out as soon as possible. In addition, as the structural engineer confirmed with the landlord that the property remains safe to live in, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to move the resident to alternative accommodation, unless the advice changes.
  11. The landlord took reasonable steps in responding to the reported structural issues. It arranged for surveyor inspections and a structural engineer inspection. The Ombudsman acknowledges that structural issues can take time to identify. Monitoring a property for one to two years is a regular procedure when investigating movement issues to identify the cause of the movement so it can be resolved. Therefore, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of structural issues at the property.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The resident’s partner has raised concerns about the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident’s partner sent a complaint email to the landlord on 15 November 2021. He stated he was unhappy that the initial email was not acknowledged and logged as a complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The code states when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the complaint’s procedure within 5 working days. The code also states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. A stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the same timescales which are referenced in the code.
  3. The resident’s partner submitted a complaint to the landlord on 15 November 2021 about ongoing issues relating to the structure of the property, including internal and external cracks to the walls. The landlord initially failed to acknowledge and log the resident’s partner’s complaint. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 11 December 2021, requesting the complaint email sent in November to be logged as a complaint. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 29 December 2021. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord failed to log the complaint within 5 working days and its stage one complaint response was provided outside the 10 working day timescale. Therefore, the response was late and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. On 17 January 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s partners request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process. The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 11 February 2022. This response was on time and compliant with the code.
  5. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that there was an internal error in failing to acknowledge and log the email dated 15 November 2021 as a complaint. The landlord provided an apology for the error to the resident and the resident’s partner in its stage one complaint response. The Ombudsman believes the apology was proportionate to reflect the error and distress and inconvenience caused, particularly as there was only a slight delay. Therefore, the apology amounts to reasonable redress in this case for the landlord’s errors in complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of structural issues at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that once the one-year monitoring period has elapsed, the landlord should carry out any remedial works identified from the results of the monitoring.  The remedial work should be carried out in line with the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy.