Arun District Council (202344745)

Decision
Case ID	202344745
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Arun District Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Flexible Tenancy
Date	18 December 2025

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom house. On 24 February 2023 the resident reported cracks. The landlord inspected the following month and recommended a structural engineer attend. On 3 April 2023 the resident reported gaps in the roof and a leak. The landlord inspected the following month and a structural survey was carried out in June 2023.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

There were delays and poor communication in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs. It offered some redress but this was insufficient considering the extent of the failures and the impact on the resident.
There were minor communication failures and short delays in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 29 January 2026
	Insurance information The landlord must write to the resident telling her how she can claim for damaged items on its insurance (not her contents insurance) and what evidence she will need to provide for this.	No later than 29 January 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid the resident £750 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, as follows: £700 for its handling of her reports of repairs (inclusive of the £500 already offered). £50 for its complaint handling.	No later than 29 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
November 2023	The resident complained on 1 November 2023, that she had reported a roof repair in April 2023 but no works had been done. During a call to discuss the complaint later that month, the resident said she was also waiting for works to resolve internal and external cracks.
24 November 2023	The landlord’s stage 1 response upheld the complaint as it had taken too long to complete repairs and it had not kept the resident updated. It confirmed it had completed repairs to the roof and external cracks, but internal works were outstanding. It said it needed the results of an asbestos survey, booked for later that month, before these could go ahead. It apologised and offered £500 compensation.
22 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint, saying some works had been done but decorating works were still outstanding. She raised concerns about the quality of the works completed. She said she had asked for a copy of the structural survey report but not received this.
26 February 2024	The landlord’s stage 2 response partially upheld the complaint. It acknowledged there had been a delay in it starting works following the asbestos survey. It confirmed these had now been completed. It said, despite the resident asking for a copy of the structural survey report, she had not been sent this. It apologised for the failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as it did not address all of her concerns, and no additional compensation was offered at stage 2.

What we have not investigated

The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of roof and gutter replacement works being completed as part of a planned programme. The landlord’s handling of roof repairs has been included in our investigation, but not its handling of the gutter replacement. This is because this issue was not included in the resident’s original complaint to the landlord. She can raise this as a new complaint with the landlord if she continues to be dissatisfied with its handling. Once this has completed the landlord’s internal process, she can refer this back to us for investigation.

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	Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property in accordance with Section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This includes the roof, walls, ceilings and brickwork.

Cracks

It was reasonable that the landlord treated the resident’s report about cracks as a routine repair. The landlord’s resident handbook at the time said it would complete these types of repairs at the next available appointment. This is vague, so we have assessed the landlord’s handling in accordance with an industry standard response time for routine repairs of 20 working days. The landlord’s contractor appropriately attended on 9 March 2023, 9 working days after the resident’s report.
The contractor recommended a structural engineer attend and, in response, the landlord arranged for its technical officer to inspect. While this was not what had been recommended, it was reasonable that the landlord sought its own internal expert’s view on the cracks, before it instructed an external survey. The landlord attended on 8 May 2023, 2 months after the initial inspection. This was too long and should have been done sooner.
The landlord said it wanted a second opinion from a structural engineer following its inspection in May 2023. It asked the council’s building control team to visit. This team is not part of the landlord function of the council. Therefore, its actions and decisions are outside the scope of this investigation. The resident has challenged the surveyor’s conclusion that the cracks were not caused by any structural defect. Any concerns about the council’s building control function would need to be raised first as a complaint, and then to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
The landlord sent the request for an inspection to the building control team the same day. However, it did not proactively follow up to ensure action was taken. It was only when the resident spent time and effort chasing this up on 9 June 2023 that the landlord chased the same day.
The structural engineer inspected on 15 June 2023 and sent their report to the landlord 4 days later. Despite this, the landlord did not do anything further until after the resident chased it on 5 September 2023. The landlord reviewed the report, identified internal and external works required and raised an order on 19 September 2023. This was 3 months after the report was provided and 6 months after the initial inspection. This was too long and contributed to the overall delay in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The resident asked for a copy of the structural survey report. The landlord was not obligated to share this with her, but it should have told her the outcome of the survey. It is best practice for it to do this in writing to avoid misunderstanding or confusion. The landlord sent a copy of the report to the resident on 26 February 2024. This was 8 months after the inspection. This was too long and the landlord should have told her the outcome sooner.
After the works order was raised on 19 September 2023, the landlord did not proactively progress it. It was only after the resident spent time and effort chasing on at least 2 occasions in October 2023, and raising her complaint on 1 November 2023, that it took action to progress the works. This was frustrating for the resident.
The landlord completed external works to address cracks on 18 November 2023, 9 months after the resident reported this. As the landlord had to seek the expert opinion of a structural engineer it was reasonable that it took longer than a routine repair. However, it took too long and there were delays that could have been avoided if the landlord had better managed the issue. It was appropriate that the landlord reattended when the resident reported the external works had not been finished properly on 22 November 2023. It attended 2 days later. This was timely and showed it had taken her concerns seriously.
When the external works were completed on 18 November 2023, the landlord identified it needed to complete an asbestos survey before internal works could be done. While frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable for safety reasons that the landlord needed to complete this before progressing the works. The landlord completed the asbestos survey quickly on 28 November 2023. However, it did not then proactively progress the works and it was only after the resident chased this up on 27 December 2023 that it scheduled the internal works.
The landlord completed the internal works, including redecoration, over several visits in January and February 2024. During this period, the resident chased it on at least 4 occasions for the works to be progressed and follow on appointments to be scheduled. This included her escalating her formal complaint. The works were completed by 22 February 2024, a year after the resident reported this. This was an unreasonable delay and the resident had to expend significant time and trouble to get them completed.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that delays had occurred because its contractor had not scheduled the works. It said it was not responsible for scheduling works for the contractor and did not fully uphold the complaint on this basis. However, the contractor is an extension of the landlord. Therefore, any failure by the contractor, is a failure by the landlord and it should accept responsibility for this.
The landlord agreed to post inspect the works on 1 March 2024, after the resident raised concerns. This was appropriate to check they had been completed to a satisfactory standard, and showed it was taking her concerns seriously. The landlord confirmed the works had been completed to a satisfactory standard but agreed to do some additional works to address the resident’s concerns. While not obligated to do so, it was appropriate that the landlord did this considering the failures it had identified and in order to fully resolve the matter for the resident.
On 30 January and 6 February 2024 the resident raised concerns about contractor operatives who had been working in the property. She said they had been swearing, broken a light and had not covered her belongings, which meant they had been covered in dust and paint splashes. The resident made these reports after the complaint was escalated and in reply to the stage 2 acknowledgement. As these concerns were linked to the same issues under investigation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address them in its stage 2 response, but it did not. There is no evidence the landlord ever addressed or responded to these concerns. This was disappointing for the resident.
Considering the time passed, the landlord cannot respond to concerns about operative conduct now. However, it can tell the resident how she can claim for damaged items. We order the landlord to write to the resident telling her how she can claim for damaged items on its insurance (not her contents insurance) and what evidence she will need to provide for this.

Roof

It was reasonable that the landlord treated the resident’s report about the roof, made on 3 April 2023, as a routine repair. The landlord’s repairs handbook at the time said emergency repairs included serious water leaks. While the resident had reported a leak from the roof, this only happened when it rained and so was not persistent or uncontainable. Therefore, this was not a serious water leak. The landlord attended on 18 May 2023, 30 working days after the job was raised. This was over the industry standard 20 working day response time for routine repairs.
When the landlord attended on 18 May 2023, it reported back that scaffolding was needed. There is no evidence the landlord did anything after this visit to progress or further investigate this repair. When the resident asked for an update on 9 June 2023, the landlord told her it could not complete the work until the structural engineer inspected.
It was reasonable that the landlord did not complete works to address cracks until after the structural engineer had attended. However, it should have progressed works to the roof to stop the leak as the structural engineer’s visit had no bearing on this. The landlord’s decision to place this on hold was unreasonable and meant the leak continued for longer than it should have.
The landlord completed works to the roof on or around 22 November 2023, 7 months after the resident first reported this. The landlord’s repairs handbook at the time said major repairs were ones that needed scaffolding to be put up. As the landlord identified scaffolding was needed on 18 May 2023, it was reasonable that it treated this as a major repair from that date.
The landlord’s repairs handbook said the timescale for major repairs would depend on the nature of the work involved. Again, this is too vague, so we have assessed the landlord’s handling against an industry standard response time of 3 months. The landlord completed this repair in 7 months. This was more than double the industry standard response time and too long considering the roof was allowing water into the property when it rained.

Conclusion

The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered £500 compensation. This approach was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle to put things right. However, considering the failures and the impact on the resident, the redress offered was insufficient, so a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £700 compensation (inclusive of the £500 already offered). This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the resident’s complaint said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints immediately and respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It would acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 20 working days of receipt.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 2 November 2023, 1 working day after it received it. While this was not immediately, it was a reasonable timeframe. The acknowledgement confirmed receipt of the complaint and provided an update on actions the landlord was taking but did not include a deadline by which it would respond. This information must be included in complaint acknowledgements. The landlord’s failure to do so meant the resident was left uncertain when it would respond.
The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 16 working days, over the 10 working day committed response time. The landlord told the resident on 14 November 2023 that it was extending the response deadline to 22 November 2023. This was reasonable and in line with its policy, which said if it could not respond within 10 working days it would provide regular updates and include when it expected to be able to respond.
The landlord sent the response on 24 November 2023, 2 days over the extended deadline. It told the resident on 22 November 2023 about this delay but did not say when it expected to be able to respond. This was disappointing for the resident and left her not knowing when she would receive the response. As the landlord sent the response 2 days later, this was a minor period of inconvenience.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 26 January 2024, 4 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. It sent the stage 2 response in 25 working days. These were both over the committed timescales set out in its policy. The landlord told the resident on 20 February 2024 that it was extending the response deadline to 26 February 2024. This was reasonable and in line with its policy. It went on to meet the extended deadline. Therefore, this was not a failure.
The failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling were minor and over a short period. These amount to service failure. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that had minimal impact over a short duration.

Learning

Where follow up or specialist inspections are needed, the landlord should ensure these are progressed in a timely manner to avoid unreasonable delays.
The landlord should proactively follow up to ensure actions are completed and should not rely on the resident chasing to prompt action. It should send regular proactive updates to residents so they do not have to spend time and effort asking for these.
If a resident reports works have not been finished or are poor quality, the landlord should attend to investigate this, as it did in this case.
The landlord should attend for repairs in line with its committed response times.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

No record keeping issues have been identified in this investigation. The records provided were sufficient to allow us to investigate this complaint.

Communication

The landlord should tell residents the outcome of inspections at the earliest opportunity. It is good practice to do this in writing to avoid confusion or misunderstanding.
The landlord should respond to all concerns raised by residents. Where a resident reports their items have been damaged as a result of the landlord’s action or failure, it should advise them how to make a claim on its liability insurance.
The landlord should include the response deadline or timescale in complaint acknowledgements.
The landlord should tell the resident if it needs to extend the complaint response deadline, as it did in this case. It should include a date by which it expects to be able to respond so the resident knows when they will receive this.