Beyond Housing Limited (202437783)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202437783

Beyond Housing Limited

19 July 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. Handling of reports of subsidence.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy of a 1-bedroom, ground floor flat. The property is in a low-rise block that was constructed in the 1960s.
On 4 October 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of his reports of subsidence. The resident stated the following:
1. He reported subsidence issues to the previous landlord 10 years ago.
2. The current landlord said it would monitor the situation, however, the subsidence had worsened.
3. After the resident restated his concerns in January 2024, the landlord repaired a crack in the living room wall and repointed the brickwork.
4. Since then, 5 members of staff had attended the property, and each said a full structural survey was required. However, the landlord did not carry out the survey until 3 weeks ago.
5. In addition to the subsidence issues, the resident had previously submitted complaints about other safety issues in the building.
6. He did not feel safe and needed to be moved urgently.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 14 October 2024. It set out the actions it had taken since the resident reported cracks in the walls of his property and the communal staircase on 23 April 2024. The landlord stated the following:
1. The resident reported repairs to the skirting boards in his property on 15 October 2021. Although this could have been the start of the issues, there were no other signs of subsidence.
2. A structural engineer had confirmed it was safe for the resident to live in the property while investigations and remedial works were completed.
3. It was sorry if the resident felt it had taken too long to resolve the issues, but it took time to diagnose potential subsidence.
On 21 October 2024 the resident asked for his complaint to be reviewed.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s review request on 28 October 2024.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 19 November 2024. It stated:
1. The structural survey carried out on 18 September 2025, concluded:
  1. The stepped and displaced brickwork was likely to be caused by seasonal thermal expansion and contraction.
  2. Further investigation of possible damage to the gully and drains at the front of the property was required.
  3. Investigations into the floor ventilation and possible ‘wall tie failure’ were needed.
  4. Consideration should be given to the installation of additional support for the communal staircase.
2. The next steps were to carry out further investigations. The priority was for investigation of the foundations to be carried out. It would phone the resident on 22 November 2024 to schedule this.
3. An independent surveyor had confirmed it was safe for the resident to remain in the property while investigative and remedial works were completed.
The resident referred the complaint to us as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Events following the completion of the internal complaint process

The landlord received an updated structural survey report on 10 December 2024, with the results of bore holes assessment. The report said the “subsoils had been weakened by increased moisture content”. It gave details of works to be carried out including a CCTV drainage survey. It said crack monitoring should take place over 12 months and if movement continued, the landlord should consider underpinning sections of the wall.
On 23 December 2024 the local authority advised a Housing Health and Safety Rating Assessment (HHSRS) had found a ‘category 2’ hazard of “structural collapse and falling elements relating to the ‘stepped cracking’ in the brickwork to the front (of the building) and the drop in the floor internally”. The local authority recommended the investigations set out in the survey report be completed and the issues monitored.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his complaint, the resident referred to previous complaints made to the landlord about building safety issues. These complaints were not subsequently referred to us and are not considered in this investigation.
Theresident’s complaint also saidhe had reported subsidence to the landlord for 10 years. We normally expect complaints to be made to a landlord within 12 months of an issue arising. In this case, there is no information that shows a reason why a complaint could not have been made earlier. This investigation will therefore focus on the landlord’s handling of reports of subsidence from April 2024, as this is the earliest record we have seen of the most recent reports.

The landlord’s handling of reports of subsidence

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair and working order.
The landlord does not have a specific ‘subsidence policy’. The landlord has stated its insurance policy does not cover subsidence issues.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out 4 categories of repairs with the following timescales:
1. Emergency: Attend and make safe within 4 hours.
2. Urgent: Attend and make safe within 24 hours.
3. Appointed: Attend/repair at the next available appointment.
4. Planned: Attend/repair within 180 days.
The landlord has a responsibility to ensure that its properties are free from hazards and safe for its residents to inhabit. Under the Decent Homes Standard (2006), social landlords are expected to provide housing which meets the current minimum standard, is in a reasonable state of repair, and provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. The minimum standard for housing safety is set out by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), under which possible hazards include structural collapse, excess cold, risk of entry by intruders, and falls on level surfaces. Category 2 hazards are less severe, and the requirement depends on the nature of the hazard.
The landlord and resident disagree about when the issues of subsidence were re-raised. The resident said he reported subsidence to the landlord in January 2024. The landlord said it did not receive a repair report until 23 April 2024. The landlord’s repairs records have no record of a report of cracking or subsidence in January 2024, and the first report is 23 April 2024. On balance, we find this is likely to be when the landlord first received notice of the issue most recently.
The landlord’s repair records show it raised an order on 23 April 2024 to address ‘surface cracks’ at the resident’s property.
The evidence shows the landlord visited the resident’s property on 17 June 2024. The landlord has not provided a report or record of the visit. On the same date, an internal landlord email asked for a structural survey to be carried out. There is no evidence this request was followed up.
The work order to repair ‘surface cracks’ was recorded as being completed on 18 June 2023.The repair was completed in 56 days. This is in accordance with the timeline for an ‘appointed repair’ in the landlord’s policy.
Following the visit, on 19 June 2024 the resident contacted the landlord by phone. The resident said he was chasing a repair “about his wall and ceiling crumbling away”. He said the issue had been ongoing for 8 years and he believed the property was unsafe.
On 8 July 2024 the landlord raised an ‘urgent 1 day’ repair to make safe the communal stairs. The landlord’s records state the resident had reported large cracks and had expressed concern that the stairs could collapse. The landlord has said it attended as an emergency, which was appropriate, however, it has not provided a report or record of the visit.
The landlord visited the building on 16 July 2024. An internal landlord email sent after the visit stated the following:
1. There was a gap under the skirting boards in the resident’s property.
2. There was cracking above and below the windows on the exterior of the property, and the lintel appeared to have dropped.
3. The drain at the front of the property was blocked and in poor condition.
4. There was ‘flexing’ to the communal staircase.
5. A full internal and external structural survey was recommended. The survey should include the communal staircase.
On 3 August 2024 the landlord raised a purchase order for an independent structural survey. This was an appropriate step to take following the visit.
A structural inspection was conducted on 18 September 2024. The landlord was provided with the survey report on 25 September 2024. The report concluded the cracking to the brickwork was caused by structural movement, which may have been exacerbated by seasonal expansion and contraction. It said, the nature of the cracking could, however, be a sign of “foundation movement” and this needed further investigation. The report recommended further investigation to identify the cause of the cracking and the following works:
1. Clear the gully of debris and checking it is working efficiently. This should be done immediately.
2. Dig ‘trial’ bore holes to identify the foundation type and depth and assess the subsoils.
3. A CCTV camera survey of the drainage system near the damaged masonry. Check pipes near the gully for leakage.
4. An inspection of the sub-floor void below the resident’s flat. The inspection should investigate the condition, check for timber infestation and decay, and assess the ventilation. This should be carried out by a suitably qualified “timber rot and infestation specialist” and all recommendations implemented.
5. Commission a ‘wall tie inspection’. This was to confirm the existence and condition of wall ties between the “bowed band of brickwork” between the ground floor and first floor windows.
6. Installation of an appropriately designed support frame for the communal staircase.
7. Once the above works were completed a comprehensive scheme of remedial works could be identified.
On 7 October 2024 the landlord asked the independent surveyor (who carried out the structural survey) if the resident’s property was safe to live in. The surveyor responded on 8 October 2024. He said it was safe for the resident to remain in the property “on the understanding that the remedial repairs and investigation works will be undertaken within a 6-month period”. There is no evidence the landlord advised the resident of the surveyor’s assessment at this time. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so to give the resident reassurance about the property.
The evidence shows the landlord raised a job on 23 October 2024 for a CCTV survey. This was raised as a routine repair and the target date was 28 June 2025. This was a reasonable step to take in line with the recommendations of the structural survey of September 2024.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord attributed the cracked brickwork to “thermal expansion and contraction”. The response did not summarise the survey report’s other conclusions. Although the landlord said further investigations were required, it did not explain this was due to the report stating the cracks could indicate “foundation movement”. The landlord had commissioned the report and could decide the extent to which it shared the information. However, by not sharing or summarising the report’s conclusions, the landlord risked undermining the resident’s confidence in its handling of the works.
Subsidence investigations can be complex. It can necessitate the involvement of multiple specialist contractors, investigation, periods of monitoring, and diagnosis based on several factors and possible causes. We understand that such cases may be challenging for landlords to resolve. In such circumstances effective coordination and good communication with residents is key.
The landlord’s records show an operative requested a structural survey on 17 June 2024. After a subsequent request on 16 July 2024 the landlord commissioned a survey. There is no evidence why the first request was not actioned. After the resident complained, the landlord sought advice on whether the property was safe to live in. It was advised the property was safe if the works recommended in the survey report were completed within 6 months. It was reasonable for the landlord to reach the view that the property was safe based on advice given by the qualified contractor.
The evidence shows the landlord completed some of the works recommended in the survey report within 6 months. Specifically, the bore holes were dug, and the landlord inspected under the floorboards in the resident’s property. The date of the wall ties inspection is unclear. It is also unclear if the area inspected was that specified in the report. However, the landlord is now undertaking monitoring of the building to check for movement in line with the surveyor’s recommendations. To ensure the resident is updated, we have made an order for the landlord to provide him and this Service with a communication plan setting out how it will provide timely and meaningful updates on the investigation and remedial works.
The evidence shows the gully clean was not completed within the recommended 6 months. That was not appropriate because the report had specified that the gully clean be carried out ‘immediately’.
The resident was clearly concerned with the condition of the property and had told the landlord he felt unsafe. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have updated the resident when it was told the property was safe, rather than have waited for the stage 1 response. Given the uncertainty of the situation and the extended timeframe of the investigations, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have set out a communication and update plan as part of its complaint response.
The delays and uncertainty are likely to have been distressing and frustrating for the resident. This has to be considered in light of the local authority’s finding that there is a category 2 hazard. That is likely to have caused some significant worry for the resident.
As a result of the failures and their impact, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence. The landlord is ordered to apologise and to pay £500 compensation. This is in accordance with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected a resident but did not have a permanent impact. This takes into account the likely worry and distress caused by the delays but recognises that identifying the cause of subsidence can be challenging.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Its complaints and compliments policy states at stage 1 the landlord will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 2 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. At stage 2 the landlord will acknowledge receipt of an escalation request within 2 working days and provide a response within 20 working days.
On 4 October 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of reports of subsidence.
The landlord has not provided evidence that it acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 14 October 2024. This was within its policy timescales.
On 21 October 2024 the resident asked for his complaint to be reviewed.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s request on 28 October 2024. The acknowledgement was provided in 5 working days. This was 3 working days after the timescale set out in its policy.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 19 November 2024. The landlord provided the acknowledgement in 22 working days, which was 1 day after the timescale set out in its policy.
In summary, the landlord has not provided evidence that it acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint. Its acknowledgement of the resident’s escalation request and provision of a stage 2 response were slightly outside of the timelines set out in its policy. However, the delay in providing the stage 2 response was minimal and did not materially affect the resident’s access to the complaint resolution process. As a result, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in its handling of reports of subsidence.
3. Provide the resident and this Service with:
  1. A communication plan setting out how it will provide him with timely and meaningful updates on the investigation and remedial works.
  2. An update on the status of works to the communal staircase.
With 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must (if it has not already) use its best endeavours to start the following:
1. Complete a CCTV camera survey of the drainage system near the damaged masonry.
2. Commission a ‘wall tie inspection’ to confirm the existence and condition of wall ties between the “bowed band of brickwork” between the ground floor and first floor windows.
3. Install an appropriately designed support frame for the communal staircase.
4. Set out a comprehensive Schedule of remedial works. The resident has also provided some information from the Environmental Agency. The landlord must consider this as part of its monitoring and works schedule.
5. Set out a schedule of how often it will update the resident based on its monitoring.

Recommendations

The landlord may wish to consider if the property is insured and consider if an insurance claim can be made on the buildings policy under the ‘subsidence’ peril.