Milton Keynes City Council (202419221)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202419221 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Milton Keynes Council |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
25 February 2026 |
Background
- In mid-2022 the resident reported cracks on walls in her lounge, kitchen, and hallway. After a period of monitoring and investigation for subsidence, the landlord completed repairs to the cracks in early 2024. It also attended several times to the resident’s reports of a leaking front gutter. She was unhappy with the time it took and way the landlord dealt with both problems.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
- Subsidence investigations and repairs.
- Gutter repair.
- Associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the subsidence investigations and repairs.
- We found service failure in its response to the gutter repair.
- We also found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
In view of the above, we have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord followed its subsidence process of monitoring and investigating the cause of the cracks and undertook repairs to fix them. However, it failed to demonstrate that it communicated well with the resident about the process. It has also not shown it completed works to remedy the cause of the subsidence and its responses overlooked this aspect. This caused the resident worry from uncertainty over whether the problem has been fixed.
- The landlord inspected the gutter within its repair timescales and took some action to attempt to address the problem. However, there were some missed opportunities to act sooner and the communication with the resident should have been better. The landlord did not acknowledge any failings and did not then attempt to put things right.
- Both complaint responses were delayed. The landlord acknowledged this and took proportionate action to put the impact right in line with its compensation policy.
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 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 25 March 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £275, made up of:
It must provide evidence that this has been paid by the due date. |
No later than 25 March 2026 |
|
3 |
Inspection order We have made an inspection order because the resident told us the cracks have reappeared in the same areas they were before and the landlord has not shown evidence it completed work to treat the cause of the subsidence. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property. A suitably qualified person, such as a surveyor, must complete the inspection. It must provide us with a copy of the report and communicate its findings with the resident, including any follow-on actions it will take. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. If the landlord cannot gain access, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. |
No later than 25 March 2026 |
|
4 |
Directional order The landlord must advise the resident what evidence it requires to consider her request to be compensated for loss of wages and increased energy bills she may have incurred. Provided the resident supplies the evidence required, the landlord must respond to her with reasons why, or why it will not, pay further compensation, and the amount it will pay if applicable. The landlord must clearly explain its approach to calculating this, such as whether it compares another year’s usage to the period complained about. |
No later than 25 March 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should pay the £100 compensation it awarded for the delays in its complaint responses because it was on this basis that a finding of reasonable redress was made. |
|
The landlord should consider implementing a quality assurance process for its complaint responses or ways to improve it if it has one in place already. This is with a view to improving the standard of its responses. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
7 February 2024 |
The resident complained about:
She said she had to chase things up repeatedly, take unpaid leave to accommodate appointments, pay full rent, and had a higher gas bill because of the cracks in the building. |
|
23 April 2024 |
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said that on receiving the resident’s July 2022 report it had undertaken a survey followed by monitoring of the cracks and a drainage survey in September 2023. The landlord confirmed the work it had done, including redecorating affected rooms in the resident’s colour of choice, overhauling the front door. It also had asked the private neighbouring property to clear the gutters. It confirmed its contractor had raised repairs to the resident’s fence. |
|
9 May 2024 |
The resident asked to escalate her complaint because she was unhappy that the initial response did not address the ways she said she had been impacted or offer a resolution. She added that, since her complaint, she had reported that a crack had appeared and she had been given conflicting information about the gutter repair. She again asked to be compensated for her time and stress. |
|
9 August 2024 |
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said it:
|
|
After the complaints process ended |
The landlord attended to fill the new crack but recorded the resident declined the work unless it agreed to redecorate the room. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred her complaint to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and that it did not award compensation for the repair issues. She recently told us that both matters are unresolved. The landlord told us it had not received any further reports from her since the complaints process ended. The resident said that she wants the landlord to complete repairs and to pay more compensation. |
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 |
Subsidence |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the building including walls. The resident complained that the landlord mishandled the repair initially because it sent operatives to fill in the cracks. Repair logs show that on 25 July 2022 the landlord raised a repair for cracks on walls in several rooms. The plasterer who attended reported that a structural investigation was needed. It was reasonable to consider if the cracks were cosmetic in the first instance..
- Subsidence is a complex issue that often requires specialist assessment, ongoing monitoring, and staged investigations, meaning it will usually fall outside a landlord’s standard repair timescales. The landlord advised in its responses that it followed its processes in undertaking a structural survey, completing a period of monitoring, and a drainage survey. Records support that after the first inspection the landlord obtained a structural survey from a specialist contractor and advice from a tree surgeon. They also show it was regularly monitoring the cracks. The drainage report was missing from the records shared, but both the resident and landlord referred to this happening. While the overall process was lengthy (at around one and a half years), these steps demonstrate that the landlord took active and appropriate measures to manage a complex structural issue.
- According to the repairs policy, the landlord took a customer-focused approach that was based on effective communication such as explaining what work is going to be carried out. No communication logs were provided, so the landlord has not demonstrated how or whether it kept the resident updated about the work being undertaken. For example, it has not shown it explained the need to monitor the cracks and this may be why the resident believed the landlord had mismanaged the subsidence initially. It is a failing that the landlord cannot show it followed its repairs policy in keeping the resident informed.
- In her initial complaint, the resident said the trees that the landlord’s specialist had advised her was causing the subsidence were still in place. She then said in her escalation that a new crack had developed and that she believed this showed the problem was unresolved. The complaint responses were an opportunity to explain the work it had done and to reassure the resident.
- The landlord did take some appropriate actions outlined in its responses. It gave some information, such as a timeline of the actions it had taken to investigate and repair the cracks. It also acted in line with its obligations by inspecting the new crack, advising her of the cause (settlement), and arranging to repair it. However, the landlord did not set out clearly what steps it had taken to remedy the subsidence. Its internal records show that it obtained a quote for removing tree roots from drains but not when, or if, this work was carried out. Neither of the responses referred to this action. We are unable to establish that the absence is because the landlord completed the work but failed to record it appropriately. Or that it did not complete the work. Either way, it is a failing that the landlord cannot show it met all its repair obligations.
- The resident complained that she had been financially affected by needing to take time off work for appointments, such as for a door repair that was only partly completed. She also said she had incurred increased energy bills. The landlord’s complaints policy states it may reimburse residents proven costs that have been reasonably incurred. It also may make a discretionary payment for distress and inconvenience.
- The landlord’s response to this aspect should have been clearer. It advised it had redecorated the resident’s lounge, kitchen, and hallway in recognition of the difficulties she had experienced and so would not award compensation. But it did not explain in clear terms if this was because it identified service failure. Such as, if it agreed there had been a miscommunication over the redecoration, as the resident had said there had been in her initial complaint. Although it was not an unreasonable form of compensation, because the resident is responsible for decorating under her tenancy agreement, the lack of clarity made it difficult to understand the landlord’s decision.
- It is a condition of the tenancy agreement that the resident must allow access for repairs. So, the landlord would not be expected to cover costs the resident may have incurred to be available for appointments, unless there was a service failure. The records were lacking in detail about the repairs the resident had referred to (such as the door repair) and the landlord did not address these specifically, other than to confirm that repairs had been arranged. The structural surveyor’s report also recommended interim repairs to the cracks to “maintain weather tightness” but there is no record that we have seen of the landlord completing these. It is not clear if the absence of records is because the landlord completed actions but did not record them. Or it failed to complete repairs. In the circumstances, we find the landlord’s position to decline to consider if the resident reasonably incurred costs not in keeping with its policy.
- Given the above, we have ordered the landlord to take actions to put things right. This includes paying compensation for the uncertainty, and time and trouble caused to the resident. We have made this within the range we award (£100-£600) for impacts that are not expected to be lasting.
|
Complaint |
Gutter repair |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the resident’s roof under her tenancy agreement, which includes gutters. As confirmed in its stage 2 response, the records show that the landlord raised a repair to clear the gutters on 26 September 2023. But this appointment had to be rescheduledto 3 November 2023 because the resident was not home. The time it took overall at 27 days was within its routine timescale of 28 days.
- The notes state the problem was with the neighbour’s gutters and recommended contact be made with them. In the circumstances, the landlord had no obligation to repair or maintain the gutter on the neighbour’s property. It would though have been reasonable to contact the neighbour as had been suggested. However, there is no evidence the landlord acted on this, which is a failing because it left things unresolved for the resident. It also likely contributed to her reporting the problem again in early January 2024.
- On 19 January 2024, the landlord advised it was considering adding a downpipe to address the problem. There is no record of it updating her, which was not in line with its policy. The landlord then inspected the gutter again on 3 March 2024, in response to the resident’s complaint (from early February 2024), and did so within its timescale. Although it was clear it was considering a different solution, it advised in the stage 1 response that it had decided to write to the neighbour instead.
- The resident said in her escalation request, she had received conflicting information about how the landlord intended to resolve the problem. It was also apparent that there was confusion amongst the landlord’s contractor about whether it wanted to proceed with installing the downpipe. The landlord is entitled to complete repairs in any way it sees fit so changing its position on how it will do this is reasonable. However, the communication with the resident should have been better. This likely contributed to the resident feeling as though she was being disbelieved.
- As confirmed in its responses, the landlord wrote to the neighbour on 22 March 2024, which was reasonable given its limited options to deal with the matter. It though missed opportunities to consider doing this or exploring other solutions sooner, such as after its first investigation in early November 2023. And its communication failings caused the resident a degree of avoidable time and trouble in chasing the matter. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation proportionate to the minor impact caused and within the range (£50-£100) our remedies guidance recommends.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord’s complaints policy largely complied with the timescales and principles of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It must acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days. It must then respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord may request extensions up to a maximum of 10 working days, which is 10 working days fewer than the Code allows. It is also expected to include a complaint definition and give a decision and the reasons for them.
- Based on the available records, the landlord failed to meet its standards and timescales because it:
- Sent no acknowledgements or extension requests at either stage.
- Took 52 working days from the resident’s complaint on 7 February 2024 to issue its stage 1 response on 23 April.
- Took 64 working days from the escalation request on 9 May 2024 to respond at stage 2 on 9 August.
- Copied the resident’s full complaint word for word rather than summarised into a complaint definition.
- Did not explain clearly in either of its responses if it had found service failings, although the stage 2 response suggested it may have done but not in sufficient detail.
- Overlooked aspects of the resident’s complaint, such as those highlighted earlier.
- Although the landlord did not demonstrate it followed its policy, we have seen records that it was engaging with the resident about some of the repair issues she had raised. For example, it raised repairs for issues she had reported and inspected the new crack prior to issuing responses. This would have mitigated the impact of the delay. The stage 2 response also made some attempt to address the resident’s request to be compensated. It apologised that the initial response had not covered this and explained it had redecorated in recognition of the problems she had experienced.
- The landlord also acknowledged and took some steps to put right the impact of the delays in its responses of over 70 working days. It apologised and awarded compensation. The amount it offered of £100 was within the range (up to £350) its compensation policy states it may pay for minor impacts. This includes, as an example, delays of over 60 working days in its complaint responses. It was also within the range our remedies guidance recommends for short lived impacts (£50-£100), which we find was proportionate in this case.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- It is reasonable to expect the landlord to keep an audit trail of all its repairs and communications with its residents. This is so it can demonstrate it met its repair obligations and followed its policy in keeping residents updated. Although there were some repair logs, there were gaps in these, as highlighted above. But there was no communication records provided at all. The landlord should consider if it should review or change its current record keeping practices.
Communication
- Our May 2025 spotlight report on repairs highlighted that landlords could build trust and avoid failings or complaints through effective communication about what residents can expect. Similarly, the landlord’s own repairs policy recognised the importance of being clear about what repairs it is doing and to explain any unavoidable delays. We encourage the landlord to consider taking learning from this case to improve its handling of complex repair issues, such as subsidence.