Brent Council (202013798)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013798

Brent Council

31 August 2021


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about cracking in the walls at her property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since 8 April 2011. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a first floor flat of a two-storey building.
  2. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The landlord has advised that it does not have a separate compensation policy.
  3. The landlord notes on its website its repair responsibilities, which include the structure of the property. It also notes that “minor cracks to plaster” are the resident’s responsibility.

Summary of events

  1. It is not disputed that the resident initially reported cracks to her walls and ceiling on or around 5 December 2018. The landlord has advised that following this report, it reported the issues to its insurers, who arranged for a surveyor to investigate and provide a report. The surveyor did not provide their report until 20 September 2019. It is not evident why there was a delay between the resident’s reports of damage and the surveyor’s report. It is also not evident that the landlord communicated to the resident that it was arranging for an inspection, or when such an inspection would occur, nor is it evident that the landlord made any investigations of its own prior to contacting its insurer.
  2. The surveyor’s report described the cracks in the resident’s property as “moderate” and attributed them to poor ‘tying’ between the rear of the property and the main property. They advised that no structural repairs were necessary, but recommended repair works to the cracks including installing a stainless-steel mesh. They also advised that further inspections be carried out of the lower flat to help fully diagnose the issue.
  3. On 23 March 2020, 22 July 2020, and 5 August 2020 the resident reported that to date no repair works had been carried out at her property and that the cracks remained. The landlord registered her reports as a formal complaint and provided its stage one response on 18 August 2020. The landlord acknowledged it had not acted on the recommendations made in the report dated 20 September 2019. It advised it had carried out further inspections of the neighbouring properties on 24 April 2020 and had discovered further related issues which it was now seeking to address. It also advised it had arranged for its surveyor to reassess the resident’s property within 10 working days. It apologised for the significant delays and advised it would use this case to improve its service delivery in the future.
  4. It is evident that the resident attempted to contact the landlord to discuss her complaint further and on 3 September 2020, the landlord issued a further formal response acknowledging the difficulties she had experienced in getting through to a staff member of the landlord to discuss her complaint. It reiterated its apology for the delay to the works and further apologised for its poor communication. It also advised that the further inspection of her property was booked for 22 September 2020.
  5. The landlord provided a stage two response on 5 October 2020. It confirmed that the inspection on 22 September 2020 had taken place and that it was now carrying out further inspections of the neighbouring properties in order to get a “more comprehensive assessment of any structural issues.” It again acknowledged and apologised for the significant delay to the works and its poor communication and offered £1,000 compensation. It also advised it would provide the resident with a further update as to the results of its ongoing inspections within four weeks.
  6. The landlord has provided this service with a copy of a surveyor’s report dated 26 November 2020 which noted the cracks are likely to be caused by “clay shrinkage” due to the trees in the location absorbing moisture. They subsequently recommended felling the trees. On 17 March 2021, the landlord’s surveyor also advised the landlord that a drain survey had been carried out and made recommendations that the drains be repaired. They advised that this work, along with the tree works, should be completed prior to attending to the cracks.
  7. The resident has advised this service that in or around July 2021, the landlord carried out some works to the trees in the area. She also advised that in or around August 2021, the landlord had contacted her to arrange a further inspection of her property. She further advised that she had accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation made in its stage two response, but that, aside from the communication in August 2021, she had not received any follow ups from the landlord about what works it was carrying out.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs information on its website notes that the resident is responsible for “minor” cracks to plaster. It is evident however that in her reports to the landlord, the resident expressed concern at the severity of the cracks. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord sought to carry out an investigation to satisfy itself as to the severity of the cracks.
  2. The Ombudsman considers it best practice to acknowledge any reports regarding repairs within a reasonable amount of time and to set out a timeframe for any actions required. Following her initial report in December 2018, based on the evidence provided to this service, it is not evident that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports, nor that it advised her that it was arranging for a surveyor through its insurer to investigate the issue. This would have left the resident unclear about how her reports were being resolved.
  3. Additionally, while it was appropriate that the landlord arranged an inspection, it is not evident why it took such a significant amount of time for the report to be concluded. While the landlord notes this delay in its formal response, it also did not provide an explanation for this delay. It is also not evident that it communicated to the resident the results of this report, leaving her unaware of the recommended repairs necessary to resolve her concerns. While it appropriately continued to carry out investigations to the neighbouring properties on the same issue in April 2020, it is also not evident that it provided any update to the resident.
  4. Despite making three further attempts for the landlord to provide her with information, it is also not evident that the landlord replied to these queries within a reasonable timeframe. It was appropriate, therefore, that it considered her repeated requests for updates to constitute a complaint and that it subsequently provided a stage one response.
  5. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage one response that there had been a significant delay and that it had not acted on the recommended repairs, and it appropriately apologised and advised how it would prevent this from occurring in the future. It also appropriately confirmed it was carrying out further investigations and would arrange for its surveyor to reinspect the resident’s property. The landlord has advised it does not operate a compensation policy, but that it follows this service’s guidance on remedies. Given the significant delays and lack of communication as identified by the landlord in its formal response, it would have been helpful for the resident had it outlined its position on any compensation, which it did not do in this instance.
  6. Given that the resident continued to express her concerns, it was appropriate that the landlord initially updated her about the date for its further inspection, and that it provided a further update in its stage two response. The landlord appropriately set out the further investigations that were required and advised a reasonable timeframe for it to provide an update. It also reiterated its acknowledgement and apologies for its poor communication and the significant delays to the investigations, for which it offered an amount of compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, offered reasonable redress for its service failure up to this point.
  7. While it is evident that the landlord has continued to carry out investigations on both the resident and the neighbouring properties, this service has not been provided with evidence to suggest it provided the promised update following its stage two response, nor any other updates that would be expected given the ongoing investigation steps and the resident’s concerns. Given the significant amount of time that has passed since its stage two response, in addition to its failure to provide its promised update or any other updates that might be expected in accordance with best practice, the resident has been unreasonably left without reassurance as to the safety of her home which would have caused her significant distress. This constitutes a further service failure by the landlord, as whilst it has carried out investigation it has not communicated its position to the resident. It has therefore failed to put matters right for her following her complaint, leaving her uncertain as to the current position. It is appropriate that a further amount of compensation be offered. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, and in line with this service’s remedies guidance, an amount of £250 is appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports concerning cracking in the walls at her property.

Reasons

  1. While the landlord appropriately carried out investigations into the resident’s reports, these investigations were significantly delayed, and it is not evident that it provided any updates to the resident or explained why it had not carried out the works recommended. Additionally, while it offered appropriate compensation for its initial delays, it once again failed to provide the resident with reasonable updates that it had promised to give, or any further updates in line with best practice in the circumstances given its ongoing investigations.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to provide its promised update or any other ongoing updates relating to its investigations.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and provide an update as to the current stage of its investigation and a timeline for any further works.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to take steps to ensure that its complaints handling staff are aware of the details of its complaints policy. This should also include consideration of this service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/aboutus/corporateinformation/policies/disputeresolution/guidance-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/ if this has not been done recently.