Brighton and Hove City Council (202407907)

Decision
Case ID	202407907
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Brighton and Hove City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	20 January 2026

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy and has lived in his home since October 2018. He lives in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident complained to the landlord about the safety of his home.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of concerns about the structural safety of his home
2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

We found no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns about the structural safety of the building.
We found no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord carried out both a structural and Housing Health and Safety Rating System survey (HHSRS). It also offered the resident the opportunity for him to obtain his own survey and the landlord would pay for this. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord provided comprehensive complaint responses to the resident. The stage 1 complaint response was delayed but this was of minimal duration. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint was reasonable in the circumstances.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should re-offer the independent structural survey to the resident as offered in its stage 2 complaint response to reassure the resident about the structural safety of his home.
The landlord should discuss with the resident the options available for moving home.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 February 2024	The resident raised his stage 1 complaint to the landlord and said: he had new evidence of leak at property prior to tenancy recorded on water meter and this would explain why there was still movement in the property the landlord would have known about the leak from when the flat was vacant, and if not recorded, this was intentional the landlord instructed surveyors not to do a full in-depth structural survey there had been significant movement since the repairs of the joists in the kitchen and bathroom the surveyor was not given the information of that repair or images the landlord said there were no recommendations from the survey report there had impact on his health he felt victimised through his complaint and that if he had been a white male the issues would have been resolved he felt he had been treated differently because of his complaints The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day.
28 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it apologised if the resident felt its operatives had treated him unfairly carrying out the works in the resident’s home it would like to assure the resident this was not the case but there was no physical evidence that proved this It did not tell the surveyor to avoid doing a full, detailed survey because that would not benefit the landlord it had previously offered for the resident to arrange his own surveyor, and the landlord would pay for it and advised the resident to do this it was accepted the photos were not sent to the surveyor and apologised for this simple error it apologised that the resident felt victimised based on his ethnicity it said all repairs, surveys and inspections were carried out to the same standard regardless of property, location, ethnicity or vulnerabilities of residents it found that most landlord staff would not know about the resident’s complaints it offered to meet with the resident if he wished to express his concerns further and an equalities representative would also attend
19 March 2024	The resident told the landlord he wished to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 25 March 2024.
4 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: it had reviewed the complaint correspondence and survey reports the surveys found only minor, expected age‑related cracking and identified no significant structural movement, damp, or major hazards it acknowledged the error about the photos not being sent to the surveyor but noted the surveyor inspected the property in person it had acted on the resident’s concerns and assessed the condition of the flat it was satisfied its Repairs Team had acted correctly by commissioning the surveys the offer for the resident to nominate his own surveyor was still open
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident came to this Service as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint.

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	The resident’s reports of concerns about the structural safety of his home
Finding	No maladministration

The resident previously brought a complaint to this Service about similar matters. A decision was made in that case in September 2023 (202209990). Any reference to that case is to provide context to this complaint.
On 14 February 2024 the resident said in his stage 1 complaint:
1. he had evidence of a leak before he moved into his flat
2. the landlord knew about the leak and if it wasn’t recorded, this was intentional
3. surveyors were instructed not to do a full in-depth structural survey, and previous photos were not provided to the surveyor
On 28 February 2024, the landlord, in its stage 1 complaint response said a leak was dealt with at the property in 2018 prior to the resident’s tenancy starting. It said this was before the landlord brought the repairs service back in-house. This meant it was unable to see detailed job notes or documents relating to this repair.
The landlord assured the resident no operatives intentionally missed out information relating to the resident’s property. But it acknowledged that it did not have physical evidence to prove this.
The landlord explained that it did not instruct the surveyor to “not do a full in-depth survey” as it would not be of benefit to the landlord. It also said it was in the best interest of the landlord to make sure properties were up to standard.
The landlord explained that the images were not sent to the surveyor and accepted this was a simple error, but the surveyor conducted his survey in person. The landlord reiterated a previous offer for the resident to arrange his own survey, and the landlord would fund this.
On 19 March 2024 the resident escalated his complaint and said he wished to amalgamate his complaints.
On 4 April 2024 the landlord is in its stage 2 complaint response said 1 of the resident’s complaints had been investigated by this Service and would not be considered again. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord explained it had reviewed 2 surveys carried out. The structural survey report dated 4 December 2023, and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) survey report dated 14 December 2023.
It explained that there was some evidence of minor, localised hairline cracking and this would be expected in a property of its age. It also said the HHSRS survey did not find any signs of damp.
The landlord said the resident disagreed with the survey results and noted it had already offered him the option of arranging his own independent survey and this option was still open to the resident.
The resident told this Service he feels unsafe in his home, unable to have visitors, and wants to move because he feels isolated and trapped.
Although we have not identified maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter, we recognise that the situation has been upsetting for the resident.
In reaching our determination, we assessed the landlord’s actions against its policies, relevant obligations, and our expectations. Having done so, it is evident that the landlord acted appropriately in the circumstances. The landlord had relevant surveys carried out and it was entitled to rely on qualified surveyors. The landlord also went further than required by offering to let the resident obtain his own survey.

Complaint	The handling of the associated complaint
Finding	No maladministration

On 14 February 2024 the resident raised his stage 1 complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day.
On 28 February the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. This was 11 working days after the resident raised his complaint.
On 19 March 2024 the resident told the landlord he wished to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s records show it acknowledged the escalation request on 25 March. This was 5 working days after the escalation request.
On 4 April 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. This was 12 working days from the escalation request.
The landlord’s records show that its stage 1 response was issued one day outside the required timeframe; however, this delay was minimal. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the complaint was reasonable in the circumstances.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord submitted a large volume of material to this Service, much of which was historic. The landlord should ensure that any evidence provided is relevant to the specific timeframe and investigation being undertaken.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was appropriate in the circumstances.