Basildon Borough Council (202313913)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313913

Basildon Borough Council

8 August 2025

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 reports of subsidence.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord which is a local authority. It is unclear when the lease began.
The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat in a block with 4 floors. The landlord is the freeholder for the block. It also owns the 2 properties which adjoin the block on one side.
On 11 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that his property had been surveyed as part of the remortgaging process. The surveyor noted evidence of movement in the block and recommended the resident obtain a structural survey.
The resident instructed his own survey which was carried out on 5 June 2023. The report recommended that works were carried out to confirm the cause of subsidence and identify appropriate works.
On 14 June 2023 the landlord carried out a visual survey. It agreed generally with the outcome of the resident’s survey and set out what investigations should be carried out.
On 5 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to set out the impact the issue was having on his ability to remortgage or sell his property. He asked for a copy of the report from the structural survey it had instructed. He also asked that works be carried out to prevent any further damage to his property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 October 2023. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the difficulties the resident had experienced. It also apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It said it would provide fortnightly updates on works going forwards.
On 14 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say nothing had changed because the works had not started and there was no start date. He said it had failed to confirm if leaseholders would be charged the cost of the works. It has also failed to provide him with a copy of its structural survey.
Having completed its investigations the landlord’s engineer submitted a structural report on 7 November 2023. The report concluded there was no evidence of subsidence or structural defect. However, there was cracking to the block linked to subsidence of the adjoining property. It needed to address the subsidence and install movement joints to limit movement between those properties and the block. This would lower the likelihood of cracking occurring to the flats.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint process dated 24 November 2023 upheld the complaint. Work to the adjoining properties was instructed on 15 November and final costings were expected by the end of January 2024. It would then decide if leaseholders were to be charged under section 20 notice.

Events post internal complaints process.

On 27 November 2023 the resident emailed us to set out his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. This was because works had not started and it had not provided him with a copy of the structural survey.
An internal email dated 1 February 2024 confirmed the landlord’s structural engineer preferred to issue a certificate of structural stability after all works were complete.
On 3 February 2024 the landlord followed up an internal email of 9 November 2023 to carry out a tree survey. A further internal email dated 26 February 2024 asked for it to be done as soon as possible.
The evidence shows that work to the adjoining properties was completed during November 2024. The landlord’s records noted its intention to monitor for 6 months. If there was no further movement it would carry out repairs to the brickwork on the block.
The landlord’s update to us dated 23 July 2025 said it understood that the 6 month monitoring period had commenced but was “unsure as to the completion date.”

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord’s evidence shows that it had previous concerns about the adjoining properties. However, it had “only undertaken extensive cosmetic repairs rather than addressing the structural issue.” The issues with the resident’s property were first identified in May 2023. Therefore this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns raised at that time.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence.

On 11 May 2023 the landlord was put on notice about the resident’s concerns. He queried who would carry out the structural survey. It replied the following day to say the resident would need to arrange for the survey at his own cost. If it confirmed there was subsidence he would need to make a claim on his buildings insurance which could include the cost of the survey. Its advice was inappropriate. As the leaseholder, the resident could not be the policyholder for buildings insurance and therefore would not be able to make a claim in his own right.
An internal email dated 12 May 2023 confirmed that the landlord’s engineer would be in the area on 14 June and would carry out a visual inspection. While this was appropriate there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident accordingly. This caused him time and trouble when he emailed the landlord on 16 and 19 May to chase for an update.
The resident arranged his own structural survey which was carried out on 5 June 2023.
On 8 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request that it investigate the structural stability of the building. He also said he had spoken to the building insurer who said the landlord should make a claim, not him. This was consistent with the position set out above. The landlord’s failure to advise the resident correctly was therefore the cause of confusion and inconvenience.
An internal email dated 9 June 2023 set out the landlord’s intention to carry out its own survey and structural report. As set out above the landlord carried out an initial survey on 14 June. A further internal email dated 15 June set out that further investigations would consist of CCTV surveys, trial pits, soil investigations, tree inspections and investigation by a cavity wall tie specialist. It noted that it would be a “lengthy process.” However, once investigations were complete it would be able to provide a report.
On 28 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to ask that it provide a certificate of structural adequacy. This was on the basis that it appeared the damage to his property was caused by historical movement in the adjoining properties and there was no current movement. There is no evidence that it provided a response which was inappropriate, compounding the resident’s distress.
The landlord appropriately provided the resident with updates during July 2023. The resident asked specifically about when a borescope survey would be undertaken. It is noted that the officer chased this, but there is no evidence they received a response. They were therefore unable to provide a meaningful update to the resident which was inappropriate.
The resident chased the landlord again in September as he was concerned that the crack on the building had increased in size. He also asked when the certificate of structural adequacy would be provided.
The structural engineer replied to say they would draft the structural report. It could be amended later when the outcome of the wall tie borescope survey was known. They said they aimed to have the report ready by 15 September 2023.
The officer who was updating the resident chased the outcome of the borescope survey again on 12 and 21 September 2023. It was carried out on 28 September. While this was positive there is no evidence that the landlord communicated the importance of the survey in terms of completing the structural engineer’s report. For example, there is no evidence that the landlord considered escalating the matter which would have been appropriate. The lack of urgency impacted on the completion of the engineer’s report which was inappropriate.
The officer responsible for updating the resident sent an internal email on 20 October 2023 setting out that he had been trying to progress the project on a weekly basis. He said he had received “minimal detail” back with no end date to obtaining the report.
The lack of internal communication impacted the landlord’s ability to provide meaningful updates to the resident. The resident’s frustration was evident in his email to the landlord on 2 November 2023 when he said he had not received an update for “well over a month.” An internal email dated 3 November set out concerns regarding the delays with the report which had been “promised for 3 months.”
The engineer’s structural report dated 7 November 2023 was provided to the landlord on 8 November. The landlord spoke to the resident the following day to confirm the report had been issued and explained the order of works. There is no evidence that it set out its position in writing which would have been appropriate. That it did not do so was a shortcoming in its response.
On 9 November 2023 the landlord instructed a tree survey to be carried out in line with recommendations from the report. The evidence shows it was not actioned until February 2023 which was 3 months later. This demonstrated a lack of oversight to ensure works were progressed in a timely manner.
Also on 9 November 2023 the landlord arranged for its contractor to price works. Its insurance company advised that the cost of works should not be passed onto leaseholders as the issue was caused by a design fault and that the landlord should arrange “urgent” repairs to resolve the issue.
There is no evidence that the landlord provided an update to the resident confirming its position regarding recharging for the cost of the works. This was inappropriate, compounding his distress and uncertainty.
Because of the lack of updates the resident emailed the landlord on 13 November 2023 to set out his dissatisfaction. He said it was not fulfilling its obligations to carry out repairs in a “reasonable period of time.”
On 15 November 2023 the landlord provided the specification for the project to its contractor. The landlord’s summary of its contact with the resident says that it provided him with a verbal update. There is no record of this event made at the time which is a record keeping failure.
On 16 November 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it was seeking advice on whether it could share the structural report with him. It was concerned it may be a privileged document because it referred to other properties in addition to his. During their ongoing email exchange that day the landlord said it would find out if it could provide an official statement without providing the whole report.
The resident replied on 20 November 2023 to advise that his mortgage lender had confirmed an executive summary would not suffice and requested a copy of the engineer’s report.
By the time of its stage 2 complaint response of 24 November 2023 the landlord’s position remained that it was seeking advice on whether it could share the report. It is unclear why there was a delay in providing a decision which should have been part of its complaint resolution.
The evidence shows that the borescope survey was unreasonably delayed which impacted on the completion of the engineer’s structural report. It is concerning that 2 years on from the resident’s formal complaint works have not yet started on the block.
This report identified failures in the landlord’s oversight of the process from August 2023 onwards. In its response to us of 25 July 2025 it was unable to confirm if the monitoring period has ended. This is evidence that the lack of oversight is ongoing, compounding the previous delays and uncertainty to the resident.
The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations around the issue of recharges. He repeatedly asked for a copy of the structural report as early as June 2023 but there is no evidence that the landlord told him when it might be ready.
Finally, it failed to set out its position regarding the certificate of structural adequacy which the resident again asked for early in the process. During a call with us on 18 July 2025 the resident said he remains unable to remortgage his property because works have not started and he does not have the certificate to pass to his mortgage lender. Consequently he is unable to move forward which has caused distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s failures amount to severe maladministration because there have been serious failings, which have caused lasting detriment to the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1,500 which is consistent with our Remedies Guidance where there was a severe long term impact.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord has not responded to our request to provide a copy of its complaints policy in place at the time of the complaint. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to issue stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy and Procedure (compensation policy) says it will consider paying compensation which is proportionate to the impact on the resident by the failure of service. Its guide suggests an offer £500 should be considered where there has been a serious failure in service standards (major impact). However, a Head of Service may authorise payments more than £1,000.
The resident’s stage 1 complaint of 5 July 2023 was acknowledged by the landlord the next day. It said it would provide a response in “due course.”
On 21 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say that it needed to extend the complaint response to 4 August as the responding officer was on annual leave. The response was already 2 working days over the 10 working day deadline set out in the Code. Annual leave is not an appropriate reason for extending a complaint response. This is because landlord’s should ensure they have sufficient resources in place to maintain service delivery in such circumstances. Nevertheless, if further time was required, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident before the deadline had passed and to have agreed a revised date to respond. That it did not do so was inappropriate.
The Code requires landlords to issue responses when the answer to the complaint is known, not when outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. An internal email dated 31 July 2023 said the complaint would need a further extension because it did not have a solution and until it did the case would need to remain open.
There were no further updates to the resident on the progress of his complaint until the landlord provided its formal response on 13 October 2023. This was 72 working days after the complaint was made and 62 working days outside the timescale set out in the Code.
The landlord’s response appropriately apologised for the delay but failed to consider offering compensation in line with its compensation policy to try to put things right. It also failed to provide an explanation as to what had gone wrong and what it would do differently.
The Code in place at the time requires landlords to set out in clear plain English the:
1. Complaint definition.
2. Reasons for any decisions made.
3. Details of how to escalate the matter if necessary.
The Code also encourages landlords to use the complaints process as an opportunity to resolve the substantive issue at the earliest opportunity and develop positive landlord and resident relationships.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to set out any of the details above. Furthermore, it failed to demonstrate that it had carried out a thorough investigation into the resident’s complaint. It missed an opportunity to set out what had gone wrong, its learning and how it would put things right. Due to the brevity of its response it failed to demonstrate a meaningful understanding of the impact on the resident due to his individual circumstances. This further eroded the landlord and resident relationship.
The resident’s frustration was evident in his email of 14 October 2023 when he requested to escalate his complaint. The landlord failed to provide a response causing the resident time and trouble when he contacted us for assistance on 14 November. We wrote to the landlord on 16 November to request that it provide its stage 2 complaint response by 14 December.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 November 2023 While this was in line with our deadline it was 29 working days after the resident made his request and 9 working days outside the response time set out in the Code.
The stage 2 response also failed to adhere to the requirements of the Code set out above. Furthermore, it incorrectly advised the resident to escalate his complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
The landlord’s response provided a brief update on the situation. While this was positive it failed to demonstrate that it had carried out an open minded and independent review of its stage 1 complaint response. It also failed to demonstrate its learning, what it would do differently and how it might put things right. Its response again failed to demonstrate any empathy for the resident given the impact of the delays.
Our position is that a positive complaint handling culture means a landlord should “pay compensation in cases where there has been avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact.” The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at both stages of the process. However, it failed to consider paying compensation in line with its policy to try to put things right. This was a further failing in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation which is in line with our Remedies Guidance where the landlord failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a member of its leadership team to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,700 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of subsidence.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
  3. Consider if further compensation should be offered to the resident for the ongoing delays. The landlord should write to the resident to set out the outcome giving the reasons for its decision.
3. Write to the resident to:
  1. Confirm that it will provide a Certificate of Structural Stability once all the works are completed.
  2. Set out what works have been completed to date and provide an action plan on works moving forward. This should include but not be limited to an update on the monitoring period, when works to the block will take place, what they will consist of, who will undertake works and associated timescales.
  3. The landlord should also set out a communication action plan including details of a specific point of contact who will provide updates to the resident at agreed intervals.
  4. Set out its position on recharging the cost of works to the block.
Evidence of the orders above must be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination a senior manager should carry out a case review to identify what went wrong and what it will do differently. A copy of the review must be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.