Waltham Forest Council (202209449)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209449

Waltham Forest Council

22 September 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 response to the resident’s reports of subsidence in her garden.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. On 21 March 2022, the landlord’s repair records state that a recent storm had caused subsidence to occur in the resident’s garden, damaging her fence. The rear of the resident’s garden had slipped into a neighbouring property, causing damage.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 25 March 2022, stating that she had reported the issue, yet had not had a response. She included a letter about the issue from her neighbour.
5. The landlord sent an ‘informal’ complaint response on 26 April 2022. It apologised that it had not responded to her reports, and explained that a surveyor would attend the property to inspect the fence and garden.
6. The landlord has stated that the resident contacted it on 27 April 2022, saying that its operatives had attended and found the presence of asbestos rubble in the garden. The resident chased the matter further on 10 and 18 May 2022, with the landlord instructing its contractor to clear the debris and remove the asbestos on 20 May 2022.
7. The landlord has stated that the resident escalated her complaint on 1 June 2022. She complained about the lack of action the landlord had taken in response to the subsidence issue, as no works had yet been carried out. She also complained about the landlord’s lack of communication, as no one had contacted or updated her.
8. The landlord sent its formal stage two complaint response on 11 July 2022. It apologised for initially responding to the resident’s complaint informally, which it recognised was not in-line with its service guidelines. The landlord acknowledged that it had been delayed in instructing its contractors, who were then delayed in raising a work order. It explained that it was aiming to complete the works by the end of July 2022. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation, in recognition of the delays, the distress and inconvenience this caused, as well as the landlord’s poor communication and the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter. The landlord attended and removed the asbestos on 19 July 2022, completing the remedial works on 20 September 2022.
9. The resident remains unhappy with the delays to the works to resolve the subsidence issue. She is also unhappy with the quality of works undertaken, and feels that further works should have been undertaken to the garden.

Assessment

10. The landlord’s tenancy terms and conditions states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure and exterior of its homes. The same policy states that the resident is responsible for maintaining their own gardens, as well as any fencing, replacing the same if necessary. Typically, the resident would be responsible for maintaining her garden, however, the landlord would be expected to act in line with its repairs policy and undertake repairs to ensure that the property was structurally sound. It was therefore responsible for addressing the garden’s structural subsidence in this case, and the resulting works to prevent a reoccurrence.
11. The landlord’s repair policy defines routine repairs as faults or disrepairs that do not fall within the emergency or urgent categories, or works requiring specialist materials, components or subcontractors. The landlord will aim to complete these repairs within 21 days.
12. The landlord first recorded the resident’s repair issue on 21 March 2022, with the resident reporting that its operatives attended on 27 April 2022. This exceeds the landlord’s 21-day routine repair timescales laid out above. The operatives found the presence of asbestos in the materials that had been disturbed by the storm. However, despite the resident following up on the repairs, the landlord did not raise a repair with its contractors until 20 May 2022. This meant that the repairs were outstanding for two months before any instructions for the works had been sent to the contractors.
13. After the landlord instructed its contractors on 20 May 2022, the contractors failed to raise a work order and did not attend the property. Although the resident complained that no works had been completed on 1 June 2022, the evidence suggests that the landlord only began to enquire about the progress of the works on 8 July 2022, over a month later. The landlord attended the property and removed the asbestos on 19 July 2022, which had been disturbed over four months previously.
14. Although delays are not always considered a failing, the landlord would be expected to have a legitimate reason for any apparent lack of action. Additionally, basic customer service good practice would call for the landlord to be communicating with the resident, and to continue to manage the repair. In this case, the landlord was delayed due to several errors in its management of the matter, which resulted in the repairs not being raised correctly for a live work order. The landlord also failed to communicate with the resident, and did not keep her updated. This was despite the resident following up on her repair on numerous occasions throughout the outstanding repair. This was not reasonable and was a failing.
15. There were further delays due to disagreement between the landlord and resident about the scale of works that the landlord intended to undertake to the garden. The landlord intended to remove the debris and asbestos, and to build a wall to stop further subsidence. It would then re-slap a paved area, and re-seed the garden area. The resident wished for the garden area to be levelled out and to be then re-seeded.
16. The landlord is a social housing provider and needs to balance its costs with its obligations toward residents. Its repairs service would not be expected to undertake non-essential repairs, and would simply be expected to make safe the area, and put it back to how it was before the issue occurred. This Service cannot comment on the extent of the works. We can only assess if the works were undertaken in line with the landlord’s policy, and that the landlord considered the extent of the works, acting on qualified advice that the works were appropriate. 
17. After the resident queried the extent of the works on 17 August 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by attending the property on 22 August 2022 to identify what works were required. It concluded on 31 August 2022 that it would undertake some additional works, levelling out the garden, building the wall and laying new paving slabs to the area. This was completed on 20 September 2022, with the landlord undertaking a post-work inspection and finding that works were up to standard and complete. This additional delay was not unreasonable, as the landlord was ensuring that the works it undertook were appropriate, and in line with its responsibilities.
18. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord should use its complaint’s procedure to identify its errors, explain these to the resident, acknowledge the impact they had, and try to put things right.
19. The landlord acted appropriately in its complaint response, by identifying that there had been errors in it raising an initial inspection, and again in it raising the actual work orders. It acknowledged that this had caused delays to her repairs. The landlord also acknowledged that it had not communicated effectively with the resident, and that it had failed to raise her complaint formally when she had initially complained in March 2022. The landlord apologised, and again acted appropriately by offering the resident £250 compensation, to recognise its errors in this case and the impact that the delays had on the resident.
20. Subsequently, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has acted in line with the code, and has tried to put things right by offering an apology and financial redress to the resident. It has also completed the resident’s repairs in line with its obligations. This offers suitable redress to the complaint in the circumstances.  

Determination (decision)

21. 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, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.