Swindon Borough Council (202411511)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411511

Swindon Borough Council

30 January 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:
1. Response to the structural issues that the resident reported.
2. Handling of the resident’s request for it to participate in a joint meeting with her MP.
3. Consideration of the resident’s medical needs.
4. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is leaseholder of a 2 bedroom flat that is located on the first floor of a Grade II listed building. The landlord is a local authority and the freeholder of the building.
On 19 January 2024 the landlord sent the resident a Section 20 notice informing her of its intention to carry out various external works to the property. The planned works included repointing the brickwork, inspecting the roof, and aligning and clearing the guttering.
On 30 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord following an earlier conversation with the landlord concerning the Section 20 notice. She explained in her email that she felt that the landlord had let her down as a leaseholder and as someone battling cancer. She highlighted that she had been raising concerns about the building with the landlord since 2018 but these issues had not been addressed in a timely manner.
The landlord treated the resident’s email as a complaint. On 8 May 2024 it provided a stage 1 response to the resident. The landlord’s response acknowledged that the level of its maintenance and repairs since 2018 had been below standards. In addition to this, it said that the communication between its internal teams could have been better and resulted in some of the delays to the repairs. It offered the resident £1,460.32 made up of the following:
1. £440.90 which was a reimbursement of the service charge costs associated with repair works that the landlord carried out to the brickwork, roof, guttering and drains between the financial years 2017-18 and 2022-23.
2. £519.42 as a refund for service charge and maintenance from the financial years 2017-18 to 2022-23.
3. £500 for the landlord’s failure to adequately address the resident’s concerns since 2018.
The landlord explained that it excluded the 2023-24 service charge accounts due to a disputed drainage repair cost. It confirmed it was waiting for a structural report and would share it, along with a schedule of works, with the resident once available. The landlord acknowledged that external repair issues had contributed to the need for remedial works inside of the resident’s property. It noted that that the internal work could not be addressed until the exterior work was completed.
The resident escalated her complaint, although the exact date of the escalation is unclear. She expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s offer of compensation. She said that the landlord did not explain whether it would address the internal repairs and if so, whether it would cover the costs or if she would be able to make a claim via the building insurance. She noted that while the landlord mentioned awaiting a survey report, contractors had been visiting since January 2024 without any updates on recommended work. In addition to this she noted that the landlord had not responded to her MP’s request for a meeting about the repairs and her complaint.
On 23 July 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the complaint. It acknowledged that its approach to the structural work had been “piecemeal” and that its communication with the resident about the works had been lacking. It acknowledged that it had not provided the resident with inspection reports to help her understand the repairs that it identified and how they may impact her financially. In the stage 2 response the landlord provided reports from a structural survey that was completed in April 2024 and an inspection it completed in August 2023. It also provided a schedule of the work that it planned to complete to the building. It committed to arranging temporary accommodation for the resident while it carried out work that could impact her health. It agreed to meet with the resident’s MP if another request was raised and offered the resident an additional £500 compensation, making the total compensation offered £1,960.32.

Events after the end of the complaints process.

In August 2024 the landlord arranged temporary accommodation for the resident while it completed roof insulation work. The resident has told us that she was unhappy with the accommodation that the landlord provided. She also informed us that the landlord went into her flat without consent and caused damage.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman cannot review matters that the landlord has not had the chance to address through its formal complaints procedure. The resident’s concerns about the standard of the temporary accommodation and the landlord’s access to her flat arose after this complaint concluded the landlord’s procedure. As such the landlord has not had the opportunity to formally respond to these issues as part of this complaint. The resident has raised her respective concerns with the landlord and therefore may raise a formal complaint if she is not satisfied with the landlord’s response.
In her complaint the resident mentioned her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her attempts to sell the property in 2018 and 2020 for context. The Ombudsman expects complaints to be raised within a reasonable time, typically within 12 months of the issue occurring. However the matter regarding the resident’s attempts to sell the property was not raised within a formal complaint until several years later. Therefore it was not raised within a reasonable timeframe and we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of the matter in our investigation.
This investigation has considered the landlord’s:
1. Response to the structural issues that the resident reported.
2. Handling of the resident’s request for it to participate in a joint meeting with her MP.
3. Consideration of the resident’s medical needs.
4. Handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s response to the reports about the structural repairs at the property.

Under the terms of the resident’s lease agreement, the landlord has an obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair, including making good any structural defects.
The landlord has acknowledged that its repair and maintenance service regarding the structural issues at the property was not up to standard. There is evidence that it was aware of cracks in the building and other issues, such as the need for repointing of the brickwork and gutter clearance, since December 2018. Following the landlord’s inspection of the property in December 2018, its surveyor recommended that a discussion take place regarding the cracks in the building. However, there is no evidence that this discussion ever happened.
In addition to this there is no evidence that the landlord took the necessary steps to monitor the building, which is a common practice when structural issues are suspected. The service charge statements of accounts for the financial years 2018-19 to 2022-2023 indicate that the landlord cleared the guttering and completed ad-hoc repairs to the roof and some brickwork. However, there is no indication that it carried out any investigative work into the broader issue it identified during the 2018 survey, particularly the movement cracks that were cited in the surveyor’s report.
Given this it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that it had failed to address the structural concerns it had been aware of since 2018. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord failed to carry out maintenance and repairs to address the reported cracking to the building in accordance with its obligations.
When there are failings by a landlord the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its failure to repair the exterior of the property and the impact of this on the resident and her flat.
The landlord also evidenced that it had learnt from the outcome of the complaint by:
1. Ensuring that it had an appointed key contact for the resident in relation to the outstanding works. Given the historical evidence showing there was a lack of follow up in monitoring the issue, the assignment of a point of contact was reasonable as the works were major and required oversight.
2. Providing the resident with copies of the inspection reports and a schedule of the works that it planned to complete to the building. This was appropriate as it acknowledged the failure to keep the resident informed about the repairs in previous years.
The landlord offered £1,960.32 compensation which included a reimbursement of service charges that it levied for the ad-hoc repairs it completed to the exterior to the building. The landlord’s offer to reimburse the service charges it levied for external repairs was reasonable. It recognised that it did not approach the structural works holistically in previous repairs and instead completed relatively minor works rather than address the wider issue with the property structure.
£1,000 of the total compensation that the landlord offered was in recognition of the impact of its service on the resident since she reported the repair issue in 2018. This amount was appropriate and aligned with the landlord’s compensation guidelines. The offer reflected the landlord’s mismanagement of the repair that had a significant and long-term effect on the resident who was dealing with significant health problems and who had been pursuing the issue since 2018. The landlord failed to address the required work in a timely manner despite being aware of the issue since 2018.
The landlord has recognised the shortcomings in repairing the structure and exterior of the property and it has gone some way to offer redress to the resident and has demonstrated learning from its findings. However, we have found that there was a service failure in the landlord’s response because it has not appropriately addressed the resident’s concern regarding the remedial work required to her flat as a result of the external repair issues.
The terms of the resident’s lease agreement confirm that she is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the interior the property including, walls and fixtures and fittings. In response to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that the external repair issues had contributed to the need for remedial internal works. However it did not explain to the resident whether it would complete such work itself or whether the resident was expected to refer the matter to its insurer.
We understand from the information that the landlord has provided to us that it has proposed completing internal works in the resident’s flat. It has provided a copy of a quotation dated 16 January 2025, for internal works to the resident’s flat. The resident has informed us that the landlord started work to her flat in or around October 2024 without her consent, and she is unhappy with how her flat has been left.
As a result, we have ordered that the landlord clarify to the resident what work, if any, it intends to complete to her flat and whether, as a leaseholder, she will be expected to contribute to the cost of such work.
The resident has raised concerns about the cost implications, specifically service charges, due to the delay in the landlord completing the structural work since 2018. However, the Ombudsman cannot assess the level or reasonableness of service charges. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) is the appropriate body to make determinations regarding service charge liability, including whether the charges have been reasonably incurred.
In conclusion, a service failure has been found in the landlord’s response to concerns about the structural work. While the compensation offered is proportionate and the landlord has demonstrated learning from the complaint, it did not clarify the details of the internal works in the resident’s flat, as raised in her complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to participate in a joint meeting with her MP.

There is evidence that on 11 March 2024 the landlord intended to notify the resident’s MP about an inspection scheduled for 25 March 2024, but it failed to do so, and the survey did not take place.
In response to the complaint, the landlord said that it could not find evidence of the resident’s request for the meeting. It has since acknowledged to us that the request had been made, though it was not passed to the relevant team to arrange at the time.
Despite not finding evidence during its investigation, the landlord reasonably upheld the complaint, accepting the resident’s account that she and her MP had requested the meeting.
As a resolution, the landlord agreed to meet with the resident’s elected MP, acknowledging the missed opportunity to do this when it was initially requested. The landlord has therefore offered reasonable redress, acknowledging its failure to arrange the meeting initially and offering an alternative meeting.

The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s medical needs.

The complaint correspondence indicates that this issue relates to the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s medical needs regarding the structural repairs.
The resident said in her complaint that historically, the landlord had not considered her vulnerabilities. During the discussions with the landlord about her complaint, she informed it that she was significantly impacted by dust due to her medical conditions.
In response to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that, in previous years when it completed the ad-hoc external works, it had not considered the resident’s medical needs.
Landlords are required to comply with health and safety regulations such as the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and other relevant legislation, ensuring that any repair work carried out does not put residents at risk. This is especially important when it involves potential hazards like dust, noise, or structural works. Therefore if a resident has special health needs, such as in the resident’s case, the landlord would be expected to consider her needs when planning repair works. The landlord should take reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate any potential negative impact on the resident’s health or quality of life.
On receipt of the complaint the landlord took appropriate action by meeting with the resident on 10 July 2024 following her stage 2 complaint. The landlord has explained that following the visit it completed risk assessments which resulted in its decision to arrange temporary accommodation for the resident while disruptive work was being carried out to the property. The disruptive work in question was the loft insulation work and external repointing work which was identified to likely create a lot of dust. The landlord’s agreement to arrange temporary accommodation was incorporated into the schedule of works, which was provided to the resident.
The landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to the complaint about its consideration of the resident’s medical needs. It acknowledged not considering the resident’s needs in the past, but in response to the complaint, sought clarification and arranged temporary accommodation.
The landlord’s agreement to arrange temporary accommodation for the resident demonstrates that it considered her concerns and took steps to mitigate the impact of the proposed work on her health. It followed through on this agreement and arranged temporary accommodation between 18 and 20 August 2024 while the loft insulation work was completed. The landlord also agreed to arrange temporary accommodation during the external repointing work, which was completed in October 2024. However, the resident had arranged a holiday during this period so the temporary accommodation arrangement by the landlord was not necessary.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. Its policy states that at stage 1 it will acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and then respond within 10 working days of its acknowledgment. At stage 2 it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and then respond within 20 working days of this. If the landlord is not able to provide a response within the timeframes noted in its policy it will explain what happened and suggest a remedy.
The landlord has acknowledged to this Service that the responses were sent outside of its service standard agreement. It said that its extended response time was agreed with the resident, although we have seen no evidence of this.
We have not been able to determine when the resident submitted her stage 2 complaint. However we have seen that the stage 1 response was delayed significantly. Our complaint handling code (the Code) states that any extension of a response to a complaint should be no longer than 10 working days without good reason and the reasons should be clearly explained to the resident.
Although there is no evidence the landlord discussed the need for an extended response time with the resident, 70 working days passed between the submission of her initial complaint and the stage 1 response. During this period, the landlord communicated with the resident and met with her to discuss the complaint and outstanding repairs. However, the resident still had to wait a considerable time for a complaint response, and the landlord did not offer redress for the delay.
Therefore a service failure has been found in the landlord’s complaint handling. The impact on the resident as a result of the delay in the provision of the complaint response is considered minimal. This is because the landlord was in contact with her during the period of the delay regarding the concerns raised. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 in recognition of the potential impact of the delay. The compensation that we have ordered is in line with our remedies guidance where a service failure has been found.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
1. There was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the structural issues that the resident reported.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme:
1. The landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to the complaint about its handling of the resident’s request for it to have a joint meeting with her MP.
2. The landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to the complaint about its consideration of the resident’s medical needs.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report it has been ordered that the landlord:
1. Pay the resident the compensation totalling £2,010.32 comprising:
  1. £1,960.32 that it offered the resident in its response to the complaint if this has not already been paid. The landlord must provide us with confirmation of payment.
  2. £50 in recognition of the potential impact on the resident as a result of the service failure found in its complaint handling. The landlord must make this payment directly to the resident and provide us with confirmation of payment.
Within 6 weeks of this report it has been ordered that the landlord:
1. Confirm its position to the resident regarding the associated structural work in her flat, including whether it will complete the work and, if so, provide a schedule.
2. Clarify whether it will cover the cost of the remedial work to her flat. If not, the landlord should inform the resident if she can make a claim via the building insurance.
3. Once the landlord has clarified its position to the resident it must provide us with a copy of its correspondence.