Oxford City Council (202325520)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325520

Oxford City Council

28 July 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to rendering.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secured tenant of a 3 bedroom, semi-detached house (which the landlord and resident have referred to as a “Howard type”).
3. The resident reported problems with the pebble dash finish of the property in 2016. The landlord’s records show that inspections of the stonework took place in 2018 and confirmed that works were required to replace the render, which took place in January 2020. In January 2022, a further request to inspect the render was ordered as it had started to crack. In June 2022, render was found to be falling off the property. Scaffolding was placed around the property to make it safe and enable the works to take place. Further inspections took place between October 2022 and May 2023, to assess what works would be required.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 May 2023. She said she had been trying to resolve the problems with her home for 5 years and described the situation as serious and unsafe.
5. The landlord handled the complaint within stage 2 of its complaint procedure and provided the resident with a final response on 13 June 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord recording or responding to a complaint under stage 1 of its procedure. It said the property was now safe as protective scaffolding had been erected. It acknowledged that the attempts to resolve the repair had taken too long and not been effective. It explained the next steps it would take to resolve the matter and said that it was necessary for the resident to move from the property whilst the work was carried out. It offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
6. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 October 2023. She said she wanted the council to complete the renovations it had consistently said it would do and wanted the matter resolved. The resident told the Ombudsman that the duration of the repairs has significantly impacted her day-to-day living. She has recently told us that she wants the work to be completed, or the scaffolding removed and to be allowed to stay in the property.
7. The landlord has told us that since the complaint response, asbestos has been found in the walls of the property, which has increased the cost of the proposed works significantly. This has also increased the risk to the resident if she was to remain in the property whilst the work continued. The landlord has told us that the resident needs to be permanently moved to another property due to the nature and scale of the repairs, and it is supporting her with that. .

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. Within the complaint, the resident and landlord have mentioned repairs and investigations to the property going back to 2016. Except in some exceptional circumstances the Ombudsman will generally only investigate complaints about issues which were raised with the landlord within approximately 12 months of when they occurred.
9. In this instance, the resident’s complaint was received by the landlord on 12 May 2023. Because of that, this investigation centres on the events in the months leading up to that date. References in the report to events in earlier periods is for clarity and context only.
10. The resident has told us that as an outcome to her complaint she wants to be able to remain in her home. Given that the landlord has determined the property is unsafe, that is not an outcome we can achieve. Nonetheless, we can consider whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was reasonable, addressed every issue of it, and provided appropriate remedies where necessary. 
11. In her recent contact with us the resident explained concerns she has about the landlord’s current decisions and actions, particularly about having to move out of her home permanently. Her distress with this is wholly understandable. However, as these new events occurred after the complaint considered in this report, the resident needs to have made a complaint to the landlord about its recent actions and received its responses. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord, she then has the option of asking the Ombudsman to start a new investigation.
12. For that reason this investigation centres on matters up to the landlord’s final complaint response in October 2023.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to rendering.

13. On 12 May 2023, the resident complaint to the landlord. Amongst other things she said:
    1. The landlord had shown tardiness by not rectifying the issue with the property.
    2. The house was not safe to live in.
14. The landlord said in its response:
    1. The property had been made safe, but only following the erection of scaffold to the exterior of the property and that this could not be allowed to continue.
    2. Attempts to resolve the issue had taken too long and not been effective. The landlord described it as an extremely complex issue, which it was keen to resolve permanently and effectively.
15. The landlord said that an architect had been approved to carry out design work and that subject to financial feasibility, work to repair the render would start in 3 months. The landlord said that for safety reasons, it would be necessary for the resident to move from the property whilst this was completed. It said a tenancy officer would contact her in 5 working days to discuss this and support the resident.
16. The landlord offered £100 compensation due to the inconvenience experienced by the resident.
17. It is clear from the evidence that the works have not been completed as the landlord had anticipated. The landlord said that there has been a significant increase in the costs of the work required and related asbestos removal. It said that the repairs are no longer financially feasible. It said the resident is being supported as a high priority for a move to a new property. The resident has confirmed she is aware of the new developments.
18. At the time it was sent the landlord’s response to the resident’s was mostly reasonable. It explained why the repairs were needed and the complexity of the problem. Nonetheless, it acknowledged the repairs had taken an unreasonably long time to resolve and that while the property was now safe, that was only temporary because of the scaffolding holding it. It apologised, and recognised the situation could not continue. It explained the steps it intended to take to resolve the issue and allow the resident to return safely to her home.
19. The landlord was not aware at that point of the further complications it would discover, and because of that the acknowledgements, explanations, and its intentions were appropriate to the situation and the complaint.
20. The landlord also offered £100 compensation. The resident had not specifically said she was seeking compensation at the time of her complaint. Nonetheless, given the serious nature of the unresolved problems, and the landlord’s acknowledgement that it had taken what it described as “far too long” to resolve them, it was appropriate for it to offer compensation as part of its overall resolution of the complaint.
21. The landlord has told us that it does not have a compensation policy currently in place, and the amount offered was aligned with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. That is not an accurate understanding of our guidance, which explains that for failings involving a significant impact on a resident, a landlord should consider offering compensation significantly higher than £100.
22. Accordingly, the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was reasonable, and the remedies it offered were mostly relevant and appropriate. But the compensation it also offered was disproportionately low when considered against the length of time it acknowledged the problems in the resident’s home had gone unresolved.

Complaint handling.

23. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgment. It should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
24. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as the first complaint made by the resident, the response provided to the complaint and internal correspondence about it.
25. The landlord has said that these details were either not held on file as the complaint pre-dated its current record keeping system, or members of staff involved had left the organisation and their emails and files were not accessible. 
26. The landlord was able to provide documentation to show that the handling of the resident’s stage 2 complaint aligned with its complaint handling policy.
27. However, the lack of any information in respect of how the complaint was initially handled, shows poor record keeping by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to rendering.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.  

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay £700 compensation to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This is comprised of: 
    1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the rendering.
    2. £100 for poor complaint handling.
    3. £100 previously offered by the landlord during the complaints process, but which the resident has said she has not yet received.
31. Evidence of compliance with this order must be provided within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

32. The landlord has told us it us currently producing a complaint compensation policy. It is urged to complete that work to help ensure it complies with provisions 7.1 and 7.2 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.