Basildon Borough Council (202502399)

Background

1. The resident complained about cracks, and subsidence to the property. She said the landlord had inspected several times over the past 3 years but had not carried out any repairs. The resident requested that the landlord resolve the problem and make safe the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of cracks and subsidence to the property
   2. The related complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of cracks and subsidence to the property
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the related complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of reports of cracks and subsidence to the property

4. There was a prolonged delay by the landlord in completing repairs to the property after identifying cracks and signs of subsidence. A resolution was still outstanding at the time of the final complaint response.

      Landlord’s handling of the related complaint

5. The landlord initially attempted to resolve the complaint using the informal stage of its complaint process. This caused a delay and confusion and was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) dated 1 April 2024.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The complaint concerns cracks to the external walls first reported by the resident in August 2021. The landlord attended in November 2021 but did not act on the recommendations for further investigations. It attended again in June 2023, when engineers identified repairs required to the external brickwork due to movement and cracking. However, no repairs were completed over the next 11 months. A surveyor visited the property again in May 2024 and referred the issue to its planned work team, but the landlord took no further action.
7. Under the tenancy handbook, the landlord must maintain the structure and outside of the building. This includes external and internal walls and rendering. In arranging inspections of external cracks reported, the landlord acted appropriately. However, its failure to follow up on these and arrange repairs within its 28-day priority 2 timescale or at all, was inappropriate.
8. In her complaint the resident reported ‘large’ external cracks and crumbling mortar. She said this issue had now caused internal cracks and movement. In response the landlord said its repair contractor would contact her, but this did not happen. The resident chased the landlord a week later. Its failure to act as promised caused her additional time and trouble and was unreasonable.
9. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said its repair contractor had referred the issue to an external engineer. It did not give a timescale for the inspection or say when the resident would be contacted. This would have been appropriate to help manage the resident’s expectations, particularly given the landlord’s earlier delays and failure to act as agreed.
10. The resident escalated her complaint around month later, reporting she was still waiting to be contacted about cracks and subsidence. The continued lack of meaningful action showed the landlord did not take the issue seriously. Its response to her reports was unreasonable.
11. At the time of its final complaint response issued a week later, an inspection had still not taken place.In its response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for delays. It said previous delays occurred when its repair contractorpassed the issue toits planning team. It also acknowledged the agreed referral to an external engineer was not actioned because ofa miscommunication.
12. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failings as this shows learning from the resident’s complaint to prevent the same issue reoccurring. However, the landlord should have monitored repairs being managed by its contactor and internal teams and ensured these were being progressed appropriately. The evidence shows the landlord did not have proper oversight of actions and repairs raised in response to the reports of cracks and subsidence.
13. The landlord also acknowledged there had been a lack of updates provided to the resident. Good communication builds trust and helps manage expectations. The resident made clear the impact of this situation on her and her household. The landlord’s poor communication caused her additional distress, inconvenience time and trouble.
14. In summary, the landlord failed to appropriately address the resident’s reports of cracks and subsidence over an extended period, during which the resident said the issue worsened. A resolution was still outstanding at the time of the final complaint response. And there is no evidence of the landlord ever providing any interim repairs. This is evidence of maladministration by the landlord.
15. In its final response, the landlord told the resident that its repair contractor would attend the next day to assess the repairs required. It said if they could complete the repairs, they would arrange these with her. Or if not, they would refer the job to an external specialist. Whilst this was reasonable, we expect the landlord to demonstrate it has adhered to actions agreed in its final response.
16. It is unclear from the evidence whether its repair contractor attended on 11 December 2024 as agreed. However, the landlord subsequently referred the issue to an independent specialist, who inspected the property on 15 January 2025. Their 20 March 2025 report confirmed the external and internal cracks were likely caused by ground movement and subsidence. The report recommended 5 actions. This included crack monitoring with ‘gauges’ and a CCTV of the drainage.
17. The landlord has since completed drainage surveys. However, in December 2025, it told us it had not begun structural repairs because monitoring devices had been installed for a 12-month period ending in April 2026.
18. While it is appropriate the landlord follow recommendations, the overall delay of more than 5 years in providing a solution, is unreasonable.
19. While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay, it did not offer compensation. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 in compensation based on:
    1. £400 for distress and inconvenience
    2. £200 for time and trouble
20. This is in line with our compensation guidance for failings which adversely affected the resident and is proportionate to the delays and failings identified.
21.  We have also ordered the landlord to provide an action plan detailing structural repairs to be completed to address cracks and subsidence with timescales.

22. Our Code dated 1 April 2024 said landlords should acknowledge a complaint within 5-working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10-and 20-working days, respectively.
23. After the resident’s 3 October 2024 complaint, the landlord offered a ‘quick resolution’. This followed its own complaints policy but did not comply with our Code which says it is not appropriate to have extra named stages as this causes unnecessary confusion.
24. The landlord logged the stage 1 complaint on 16 October 2024 only after the resident said the ‘quick resolution’ had not resolved her complaint. This delay was inappropriate.
25. There is also no evidence of the landlord then acknowledging the complaint as required under the Code. This was inappropriate. It issued a stage 1 complaint response 13- working days later. This was in line with its own 15-working day timescale however this was slightly outside the Code’s10-working day timescale.This was inappropriate.
26. On 2 December 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge her escalation which was inappropriate. The landlord provided its final complaint response 6-working days later, on 10 December 2024. This was within our 20-working day timescale and was appropriate.
27. Therefore, the extra stage made the complaints process more protracted and caused a delay. This amounts to service failure in the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.
28. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 in compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance for low impact failings but which caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
29. As the landlord updated its complaints policy in 2025 and changes complied with our Code, we have not made any related orders.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. We identified an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. There were gaps in its records of the inspections referenced in its complaint responses. Recording the outcomes of all visits in its repair log may improve the landlord’s oversight of repairs being managed by contractors and internal teams.

Communication

31. We identified issues with the landlord’s communication. It should ensure it follows through on promises to contact the resident and give regular updates regarding progressing actions, even when delays occur. Although the landlord acknowledged poor communication and said lessons were learned, it should consider how it will improve its record keeping and communication to prevent the same issues reoccurring going forward.