Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (202433636)

Decision
Case ID	202433636
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	9 March 2026

Background

1. The resident reported cracks in her property walls throughout 2023 and 2024, which the landlord did not repair. In August 2024, it moved her into temporary accommodation due to structural concerns. The resident is vulnerable. She has had a representative throughout. For ease of reference, we’ve only referred to the resident within this report.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of structural concerns.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of structural concerns.
   2. Complaint.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of structural issues

5. The landlord failed to attend the initial reports of cracked walls within a reasonable time. It did not acknowledge the earliest reports in its complaint response. It did not complete the repairs identified in 2023. There were also delays carrying out a structural survey.

The complaint

6. The stage 2 response was not aligned with the landlord’s complaints policy. It was dismissive and lacked empathy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,000. This is comprised of: £1,700 awarded in its internal complaint procedure £200 for the repair delay and lack of communication between June 2023 and September 2023 £100 for the complaint handling failures at stage 2 This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. It may deduct from the total figure any payment already made. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 06 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 September 2024	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her structural concerns within the property. She felt she was doing the landlord’s work by dealing with contractors and chasing for updates.
17 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It noted that between September 2023 and August 2024 the resident reported internal and external cracked walls in her home. It recognised it failed to complete the repairs. It explained that after a structural inspection, it asked her to leave for safety reasons. She initially stayed with family before moving into a temporary flat.   The landlord upheld the complaint. It offered £1,700, comprising: £500 for failure to complete repairs £500 for displacement £500 for poor communication £200 goodwill for family providing temporary accommodation   It also agreed to fund taxi travel to and from the resident’s workplace while she remained in temporary accommodation.
22 September 2024	The resident escalated the complaint. She said she provided photos of the cracks to the structural engineer around 5 days before the inspection. She felt her home was unsafe. She believed the stage 1 compensation did not adequately reflect the trauma or impact of her experience.
22 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said the resident’s comments were unwarranted. It said the property did not pose a safety risk. It explained it had moved her to temporary accommodation to allow significant works to take place. It repeated the compensation offered at stage 1.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred the complaint to us. She deems the compensation to be insufficient due to the impact caused.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Reports of structural concerns
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered

7. The resident was concerned that the landlord’s handling of the matter seriously impacted her health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes. This is because they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have considered

8. The landlord’s records show the resident reported cracked walls in June and September 2023. It inspected in October 2023, assessed the cracks as non‑structural, and raised a repair order. However, it did not complete any repairs. This represents a failure in its repairs service. It also did not evidence that it communicated effectively with the resident during this period.
9. When the resident reported further cracking, the landlord ordered a structural survey in January 2024. It did not complete this until August 2024, prompted by urgent calls from the resident about worsening cracks. The delay of 7 months was unreasonable and avoidable.
10. On 30 August 2024, the structural engineer identified drainage issues as a likely cause. They advised the landlord to vacate the property urgently. This was due to:
    1. severe bathroom cracking
    2. a collapsed bedroom ceiling
    3. increased movement in the cracks over the prior 2 weeks
11. Members of the landlord’s staff visited the resident at home on 30 August 2024 to discuss emergency temporary accommodation. Offering a guest room or hotel at short notice was a reasonable response to the urgent concerns identified by the structural engineer.
12. The resident explained the visit took place after 4pm on a Friday and that she was urged to move that same day. This left her with limited time to make practical arrangements. We recognise these events would likely have been very unsettling for her. Her home’s deterioration and the uncertainty surrounding this likely caused major disruption and distress. Leaving at short notice added further difficulty. For someone with memory issues, this likely felt destabilising. It is reasonable to conclude she faced considerable inconvenience and distress.
13. On 2 September 2024, the landlord offered 3 further temporary accommodation options. The resident declined its offers, preferring to stay with family or a neighbour. Its records show awareness of her memory difficulties and the risk that she may become confused in unfamiliar locations. It therefore signposted her to her GP for additional support. It located a temporary flat in an area she was more familiar with, which she accepted. This was appropriate given her vulnerabilities.
14. The temporary flat required work as it was an empty property. The landlord completed these works within a reasonable timeframe. This enabled the resident to move in on 11 September 2024, 8 working days after vacating her home. We have not identified any avoidable delays in the preparation of this property.
15. The landlord paid for removals and maintained regular communication with the resident and her family, including weekly welfare checks. Although it did not give us a copy of its decant policy, its actions reflected good practice.
16. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered total redress of £1,700, comprising:
    1. £500 for failure to complete repairs
    2. £500 for displacement
    3. £500 for poor communication
    4. £200 goodwill contribution for family providing temporary accommodation
17. The landlord also agreed to fund taxi travel to and from the resident’s workplace while she remained in temporary accommodation, in view of her vulnerabilities.
18. Following the landlord’s final response, the property was demolished and it paid a home loss payment. Her family notified it that a property had become available in the same road as her original property. It offered this to her as a direct let and she moved in once it was ready for habitation. In March 2026, her family informed us that she was settled in her new home. This was a positive step and enabled her to live in familiar surroundings close to her support network.
19. The financial redress, apology, and practical assistance offered by the landlord were proportionate. They were also in line with our remedies guidance and range of awards for failings which had a serious detrimental impact on a resident. However, we note within its complaint response, it cited that the resident’s first report of cracks was in September 2023. Yet, records provided to us show she first reported cracking in June 2023. Therefore, we have awarded additional compensation to reflect that it did not recognise this extended repair delay of several months within its complaint responses. This has resulted in a failure finding.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

20. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. This is extendable by 10 and 20 working days respectively in agreement with the resident.
21. The landlord’s policy at the time of the complaint was not in line with Code. Its policy dated December 2022 had a response time of 10 working days at both stage 1 and 2 with no specific timeframe for extensions. However, it has since been amended and is now compliant with the Code.
22. The landlord responded at stage 1 within 8 working days in line with its policy. Its response met the expected standard for complaint handling. It provided a chronology, addressed concerns substantively, and demonstrated empathy and learning. This was appropriate and in line with our dispute resolution principles.
23. However, it failed to comply with its policy and the Code at stage 2, taking 44 working days to issue its final complaint response. No evidence was provided to show the landlord sought or obtained the resident’s agreement for an extension. This is a shortcoming, particularly given her vulnerability and the heightened need for clear communication while she was living in temporary accommodation. Although it maintained contact during the delay, this did not substitute for the required formal extension or explanation of revised timeframes.
24. The stage 2 response fell below reasonable complaint handling standards. The response was dismissive in tone, particularly in its description of the resident’s concerns about potential demolition and safety risks as “unwarranted”. Given the uncertainty with the property, the structural issues under investigation, and her vulnerability while living in temporary accommodation, her concerns were reasonable. The landlord failed to recognise this or to provide a sensitive, proportionate explanation or reassurance.
25. In summary, we find that the landlord’s complaint handling was appropriate at stage 1 but failed to meet the required standard at stage 2. Issues with timeliness and tone collectively amount to a complaint handling failing.

Learning

General learning

26. It was positive that the landlord identified learning from this complaint, such as in future cases scheduling higher‑risk structural inspections mid‑week. This means it can address any need for temporary accommodation earlier to avoid disruption late on a Friday.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s record keeping concerning its communication with the resident was of a high standard from August 2024 onwards. However, it could improve its repair records. It ought to ensure it captures sufficient information to evidence its actions and decision-making.

Communication

28. Prior to the August 2024 structural appraisal, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. After, it improved significantly with weekly contact. Providing regular contact with a member of staff helped restore continuity and rebuilt trust in the landlord‑resident relationship.