Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited (202126515)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126515

Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited

23 October 2023

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 that subsidence is causing damage to the property.
The landlord’s handing of repairs required to the property.
The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the housing association. The tenancy started on 19 March 2012.

3. The property is described as a three-bedroom end of terrace house.

4. The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This includes the internal and external doors and door frames. It will also keep the structure of the property fully insured against loss or damage and other risks covered by a standard building insurance policy.

5. The landlord’s repairs planned maintenance booklet available online states that it will maintain the property to ensure that it is kept in good condition. Repairs are categorised as: emergency (to be attended within two hours), urgent (within five days) and routine (within 28 days).

6. The landlord’s complaints procedure advises that it will respond to formal complaints within 10 working days at both stages of the complaints process. It sets out that if repairs to the property are required that will take longer than 10 working days, it will send the complaint response advising when the works will be completed.

7. Furthermore, if required, it will send a holding letter within 10 working days. The holding letter will give the status of the investigation, confirm the matters outstanding and supply the date when it will provide its complaint response.

8. The landlord’s compensation policy available online sets out its approach to handling compensation payments.

Summary of events

9. On 19 August 2020, the resident reported problems with the kitchen fire door. She explained that the door was not closing property as the door frame was cracked and splintered. Also, the screws in the door frame were not secure.

10. The following month, on 22 September 2020, the resident reported cracking in the bathroom, stairwell and to the ground floor hallway. The landlord responded to the resident’s report on 10 December 2020 by raising an inspection to the property.

11. The landlord’s records show that on 28 January 2021, it raised a repair to remedy a roof leak that was entering the main bedroom on both sides of the window.

12. Another repair request was raised on 28 January 2021 to inspect the cracks to the upstairs of the property. Cracks were recorded as being in the bathroom, two smaller bedrooms, stairs, upstairs hallway and the cupboard housing the boiler.

13. Following reports from the resident on 3 February 2021 and 15 February 2021, the landlord raised inspections to check the reason for the kitchen door not closing properly. The resident also advised that there were gaps at the top of the kitchen door and believed that the kitchen door had not been correctly installed.

14. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported on 10 March 2021 that she was worried that the property had subsidence. It recorded that a pre-inspection of the property had been raised.

15. The landlord replaced the kitchen fire door and frame on 31 March 2021.

16. The resident complained to the landlord on 14 April 2021 that for over a year, it had failed to address her concerns. The resident outlined:

Since July 2020, the kitchen fire door did not close properly despite being inspected. Another inspection of the kitchen door was arranged for 22 April 2021. The resident requested that the landlord arrange for a qualified operative to attend to carry out the repair and that she had experienced a significant delay in getting the door replaced.
The landlord had not responded to the reports she had made in April and May 2020 about the cracks in the property and the crack in the bathroom was large enough that a finger could go through. The plaster in the property had blown and she wanted a surveyor to inspect the property as she was concerned that the wall had sunk. Also, she had not been kept updated since the visit from the surveyor and an officer from the repairs contractor had been rude when she had tried to make an appointment.
She had reported to the surveyor that the downstairs toilet was unstable when used and that the bedroom ceiling had water damage following a roof leak. In October 2020, the surveyor inspected the toilet, bathroom and kitchen and advised that the items could be included as part of the planned maintenance programme. However, she had not received any further communication about the kitchen and bathroom upgrade.

17. The following day, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and informed the resident that it intended to respond by 28 April 2021.

18. The landlord’s records show that on 16 April 2021, it raised an inspection for the property regarding the reported subsidence.

19. The landlord emailed the resident on 29 April 2021, providing a holding response. It explained that it was waiting to receive information from its contractor regarding the outstanding work to the property and as the property was being inspected on 4 May 2021, it wanted to review the inspection report before providing its complaint response. It advised that it intended to provide its complaint response by 7 May 2021.

20. The landlord records show that on 14 May 2021:

The structural surveyor advised that an appointment had been arranged for 28 May 2021 to inspect the resident’s property.
It informed its repairs partner that it had carried out a poor repair to the kitchen door frame which housed a fire door. The door frame needed to be renewed and the existing kitchen door rehung. It confirmed that the renewal of the fire door was included in its public – private partnership (PPP) contract.

21. The landlord provided its first stage complaint response on 14 May 2021. The key findings were:

The works to the kitchen fire door was raised in August 2020 and completed in January 2021. The resident reported concerns with the quality of the work that was carried out and an inspection of the kitchen door frame was carried out in March 2021. Follow on works were to take place in April 2021 and it was agreed that the kitchen fire door should be replaced.
The cracks in the property had been inspected and it had been agreed that a further inspection was required by a surveyor of the affected walls.
Its repairs contractor had recorded in March 2021 that the downstairs toilet was unstable.
The roof leak had damaged sections of the main bedroom ceiling. Whilst the repairs to the roof had been completed, the water damage to the ceiling remained outstanding.
Following the surveyor’s attendance on 4 May 2021, the repairs identified were:
1. Renewal of the kitchen door and frame.
2. Structural survey to be undertaken to establish the cause of the cracks to the property and the cause of the movement to the downstairs toilet.
3. Ease and adjust the doors to the first and second bedroom and stain block and redecorate the ceiling to the main bedroom following the roof leak.
Its repair contractor would carry out the works to the kitchen and bathroom and on completion these would be post inspected by its surveyor. An appointment had been arranged for 28 May 2021 for structural engineers to investigate the cracks and movement in the property.
It accepted that repairs required to the property had not been coordinated and the communication had lacked clarity which resulted in the resident experiencing delay and inconvenience.
It awarded compensation of £50 for the failures in its service.

22. The resident expressed that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint on 21 May 2021. The resident explained that the property had structural movement, that she was worried that it would collapse and the matter had been outstanding for over a year. She requested a copy of the report following the visit from the structural engineers on 28 May 2021 and listed the repairs that had been placed on hold. Also, she advised that the repair to the kitchen door and frame did not take place on 13 May 2021 as the operative had said that the replacement of the kitchen door did not fall within its contract. Since then, she had not received any further communication about the replacement of the kitchen fire door.

23. Furthermore, while she accepted that the pandemic had affected the landlord’s service delivery, she had found its communication with her to be poor. The resident rejected the compensation award and provided photos of the property.

24. The landlord chased its repair partner for an update on the door frame on 24 May 2021.

25. The next day (25 May 2021), the landlord’s records show that it decided that it would not escalate the complaint as it had not completed the actions outlined into its stage one complaint response. Also, the resident had not given reasons for her request to escalate to the next stage of its complaint procedure.

26. The landlord emailed the resident on the 25 May 2021 to apologise for the delay in its response. It informed the resident that it would not be escalating the complaint as it had not received the structural engineers report. Once it had received the findings, it would agree a way forward with her. It agreed to continue to communicate with her and would escalate the complaint if they could not find agreement. If she had any other issues, she should notify them.

27. The structural engineers wrote to the landlord on 2 June 2021. A summary of the key findings were:

It had visited the property on 28 May 2021 regarding the cracking in the bathroom, hall and bedroom.
The cracks in the property had been assessed as moderate.
It required confirmation of the soil type and suggested that a trial hole be made to establish if there was a problem with the foundations and to ensure that the drains were water tight. It Identified that:
1. The movement of the flank wall may be a result of wind suction as the flank wall may not be adequately tied to the floor and the roof.
2. First floor walls were dropping allowing movement away from the ceiling and horizontal cracking. There was a need to be sure that the walls were supported and, to achieve that, the timber needed to be exposed.
3. The landlord was to advise when it had completed the investigations.

28. The landlord sent the structural engineer report to the resident on 7 June 2021, advising of the tests that were required. In response, the resident advised that new cracks had appeared and asked what action she should take to record them.

29. On the same day, the landlord contacted its repairs partner regarding the renewal of the kitchen door frame. The following day, the repairs partner contacted the landlord to clarify whether the kitchen door frame required certification. The landlord confirmed that the kitchen door frame did not need certification as it was not protecting a communal fire escape route as outlined in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. It explained that the operative undertaking the work needed to be qualified.

30. The landlord chased its repair partner on 15 June 2021, 17 June 2021 and 18 June 2021. Its repair partner advised that the resident was not allowing access for the works to be carried out. In response, the landlord advised that the work to replace the kitchen door frame was a separate repair to those related to the cracking to the property and should be progressed.

31. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 June 2021 and apologised for the delay she had experienced. It advised that its repairs partner would contact her to arrange an appointment for the following week to survey the drains and remove the floorboards to inspect the condition of the wall ties. Also, a survey of the soil type was required and it would update her once it was completed. With regard to the new cracks, it advised the resident to take photos and record any new defects.

32. The landlord contacted a company to conduct the soil test on 18 June 2021.

33. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 June 2021, requesting further information about the exposure of the floorboards, how the furniture would be removed and whether the landlord would be liable for any damage to the carpets.

34. On 1 July 2021, the following occurred:

The company to carry out the soil test apologised to the landlord for its delayed response. It advised that it would contact a specialist company and provide its quote.
The landlord emailed the resident:
1. It apologised to her for having to chase its response. It advised that it had informed its repairs partner to contact her regarding the replacement kitchen door frame and apologised that it had not done so.
2. Its repair partner was waiting for the drainage contractor to carry out the CCTV survey of the drains. It apologised that she had not been informed.
3. It was waiting for the date for the soil test to be carried out and it would inform her once the date was known.
4. It had raised the poor communication she had experienced with the management team of its repair partner and apologised to her for this.
5. It acknowledged that she had requested that day for her complaint to be escalated and would arrange for this to be done.

35. The next day, the landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint and advised that it would respond by 30 July 2021.

36. The same day, the landlord chased the soil test and sent the soil test company a copy of the structural report. The appointment for the CCTV survey was arranged for 9 July 2021 and the resident was informed.

37. The drainage survey was carried out on 8 July 2021 and found structural defects to the drainage system. It recommended that a soft felt liner be installed into the manhole and descaling of the grease. It advised that the subsidence to the property was related to the defects found in the drainage system.

38. On 15 July 2021, the appointment was arranged for the sampling soil test.

39. On 20 July 2021, the landlord chased the repair to the kitchen door frame and informed its repair partner that a qualified operative should attend to renew the kitchen door frame. It advised that a fire door had recently been fitted to the kitchen and provided a specification of the works to be carried out. It provided a photo of the repair carried out by the multi-trader who had previously attended and advised that the work had not passed the post inspection.

40. The landlord confirmed with the resident on 21 July 2021 an appointment for 29 July 2021 for the repair to the door frame to be carried out.

41. On 28 July 2021, the landlord sent the resident a holding response advising that the investigating manager was on leave. It advised that it would provide its complaint response on 6 August 2021.

42. Site investigation works were carried out on 30 July 2021 to identify the existence and nature of any superficial deposits to the soil. The report recommended further ground investigation to be undertaken “to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of the loose superficial deposits encountered within the potential dissolution feature.”

43. The landlord sent the resident its final complaint response on 5 August 2021. It provided a copy of the report from the structural engineer. A summary of the key findings are:

It confirmed that the structural engineer’s report and the results of the CCTV survey had been received. It advised that the cracks to the property were not structural and affected the internal walls. However, it was waiting to receive the results of the soil survey to determine the makeup of the soil. The report from the structural engineer identified that extra wall ties were required to address the gaps between the floor joists and the bedroom walls. Once the specification for the works were received, it would make contact to agree a mutually convenient appointment to carry out the works.
It agreed to make good and redecorate the affected areas within the main bedroom following the leak.
It explained that it had experienced difficulty getting information from its repairs contractor regarding the status of the outstanding repairs to the property. As a resolution, it had commissioned another contractor to complete the work to the kitchen door and frame and requested a suitable time to inspect the property to understand the repairs that were outstanding.
It apologised for the delay and worry that she had experienced and acknowledged that there had been an unacceptable delay in getting the repairs completed. It advised that it would calculate the compensation owed to the resident once the repairs to the property had been completed.

44. After the complaint process was exhausted, the following occurred:

The resident reported further cracks to the bathroom wall on 6 August 2021 and the landlord agreed to visit the property on 16 August 2021.
The soil test was conducted on 9 August 2021 which recommended further tests to assess the extent of loose superficial deposits in the ground.
The landlord notified its insurers on 20 August 2021 of the cracking to the property. The loss adjusters for the insurers informed the landlord on 7 September 2021 that they had attended the resident’s property and commissioned a specialist consultant to review the reports.
The resident informed the landlord that the repair to the kitchen door and frame replacement was booked in for 27 August 2021.
The structural surveyors confirmed to the landlord on 29 September 2021 that the cracking and flexing to the internal walls and ceiling resulted from the construction of the property. It made recommendations such as:
1. Pit and soil analysis to be carried out.
2. Roof structure to be braced urgently.
3. Floor joists to the staircase and bathroom partition to be strengthened.
4. Cracks to be made good, including the provision of crack reinforcement to the block works and render.
The insurers informed the landlord that they were unable to help or pay towards the repairs as the damage to the property has been caused by a latent defect in the property construction and not by subsidence.
The structural engineers advised the landlord that they had revisited the property on 11 November 2021. Furthermore, information regarding the drain run from the water company was required before it could produce the specification outlining the remedial work to the property.
The landlord received the specification for the remedial work to stop movement in the property on 21 February 2022. The landlord agreed the specification on 25 March 2022 (additional works were assessed as required on 23 September 2022).
The landlord raised an order to ease and adjust the kitchen fire door on 9 March 2022 to achieve compliance with the fire risk assessment regulations.
The landlord paid the resident compensation of £4147.29 on 31 May 2023.
The landlord carried out a post inspection of the resident’s property on 13 July 2023, following the completion of the specification of works to remedy the cracking to the property.

45. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service in March 2022.

Assessment and findings

46. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received, and to the formal complaint, and consider whether this was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. This includes whether it acted in accordance with its policies and obligations under the tenancy agreement.

47. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. Once the landlord has received notice that the property requires repair, this should be carried out in a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s repair policy states that urgent repairs will be carried out within five days and routine repairs within 28 days.

48. It is evident that the resident has been distressed and frustrated by the delay in completing the repairs required to the property. The resident’s dissatisfaction is understandable as the situation would no doubt have been stressful for her.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that subsidence is causing damage to the property.

49. On review of the available evidence, the earliest reports about the cracking within the property occurred in September 2020. Whilst this does contradict the information provided by the resident about the first report to the landlord, there is no dispute that that the resident reported the cracks within the property and the landlord was obliged to carry out the necessary repairs to resolve the cause of the cracking. The landlord delayed in inspecting the property and a structural engineer did not attend the property until 28 May 2021. The landlord accepted in its complaint response that this represented an unreasonable delay.

50. The resident has referenced that her reports were made during the Covid-19 pandemic when restrictions were introduced by central government. The landlord has not identified this as a reason for the delay experienced by the resident.

51. The structural engineer assessed in May 2021 that the cracking to the property was moderate and that further investigations were required to determine the cause. The landlord agreed to arrange for the investigations into the type of soil and for trial holes to be made to assess the condition of the foundations and drains. An examination of the floor was also required to assess the reason for the floor dropping. This was reasonable as the landlord was responsible for the safety of the residents and her family while they were occupying the property and for ensuring the integrity of the building.

52. The landlord has recognised that the resident had difficulty obtaining information about the repairs required to the property and when they would be carried out. The available information shows that the resident had to chase the landlord regarding appointment times for the soil tests and she was not regularly updated about the actions that were being taken to establish the cause of the cracks.

53. However, once it received the report from the structural engineer, it provided a copy to the resident within ten working days. This was reasonable as it provided information to the resident about the findings from the specialist that it had appointed, particularly as it was relying on the information contained within the report to decide its next steps. Furthermore, this enabled the resident to be aware of the further investigations that had been recommended to resolve the cracking within the property. It also provided the scope of the investigations that were required to the property such as the removal of the floorboards to inspect the wall ties. This was a reasonable approach given the inconvenience that was likely to be caused to the resident while it took steps to assess what was contributing to the movement within the property.

54. It is noted that the landlord tried to offer reassurance to the resident when she made reports of new cracks in the property. Whilst the identified cracks had been assessed as moderate, the landlord informed the resident that if she saw new cracks that she should take photos of any that she saw. This was appropriate as this would enable the landlord to identify the location of any new cracks and to monitor their size and the frequency that they were occurring.

55. The investigations concluded that whilst repairs were required to the drains, this was not the cause of the cracks to the property. Further investigations were carried out to the soil and this was conducted on 9 August 2021.

56. The landlord is responsible for informing its insurers of any known risks to its assets and of any possible liability. Therefore, it was reasonable that it shared the report from the structural engineer regarding the cracking to the resident’s property and waited to receive its insurers view on any potential liability for the defects to the resident’s property.

57. The landlord’s insurers advised on 29 September 2021 that the cracking to the property was not an insurance matter. However, there was an unreasonable delay of around four months before the specification of works were drawn up on 21 February 2022 to remedy the defects to the property.

58. Overall, it took the landlord from September 2020 (when initial reports were received) to July 2023 (when it carried out a post inspection of the works) for it to diagnose the cause of cracks in the property and carry out works to resolve this. This was a significant and unreasonable delay that will have left the resident uncertain as to how the landlord intended to remedy the cracks in her property and caused inconvenience with regard to completion of related repairs such as the downstairs toilet. The offer of redress that the landlord made for these failings has been assessed below.

The landlord’s handing of repairs required to the property.

59. The defect to the kitchen door was reported around 19 August 2020 and the landlord’s repair records show that the fire door and frame was replaced on 31 March 2021 – this represented an unreasonable delay, particularly given this was a fire door.

60. This also contradicts information later set out in the landlord’s complaint response which stated that the kitchen fire door was repaired in January 2021. It is inappropriate that the January 2021 repair is not reflected in the landlord’s repair records. The complaint response also refers to an inspection of the door frame being arranged for March 2021 with follow on works arranged for April 2021 when it was decided that the door would be replaced. Again, this information is absent from the landlord’s repair records. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Repairs (March 2019) sets out the importance of good recording keeping for both landlords and their contractors in order to evidence the actions that have been taken and to demonstrate compliance with its repairs policy.

61. Notwithstanding the contradiction in its record keeping, the resident was for at least seven months without a working kitchen door whose purpose is to give adequate fire protection to her and her family. This was not reasonable.

62. The landlord’s contractors queried between May 2021 to June 2021 whether the terms of its contract covered the installation of a certificated door frame to the kitchen. This was not reasonable as the landlord’s contractor had attended to inspect the kitchen door and should have been able to assess whether the repair to the door frame constituted a repair required under its contract or whether it was outside the scope of its responsibilities as it fell within the fire regulations. However, the landlord acted appropriately by informing its contractor that the work did fall within its contract terms, showing that when the appointment was made the repair was correctly assigned and allocated.

63. The available information shows that there was a discrepancy about the resident’s willingness to provide access for the repair to the kitchen door and frame to be carried out. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident has to provide reasonable access for repairs to be carried out. The landlord clarified that in respect of repairing the kitchen door and frame the resident had not indicated that she would not provide access for the repair to be completed.

64. Nevertheless, the landlord apologised to the resident for the communication delays that she had experienced regarding the repair to the kitchen door frame. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the communication faults as the resident had to chase its staff for updates about the repair requests.

65. Also, the landlord’s repairs contractor had not contacted the resident as it had requested to arrange a mutually convenient appointment to repair the damaged kitchen door frame. The landlord’s response showed that it had taken the contractor’s lack of response seriously as it informed the resident that it had raised this with the repairs contractor management team. Further, there was evidence that it had pro-actively chased its repair contractor to find the reason for its delay in attending the resident’s property.

66. In its final complaint response, the landlord informed the resident that another contractor would replace the kitchen door frame but this appears not to have occurred until 9 March 2022. This meant that it took the landlord around 396 working days to replace the kitchen door frame to allow the door to properly close – this was inappropriate and significantly exceeds the standards outlined in its repair policy.

67. Following a repair to remedy the roof leak into the resident’s bedroom, the resident complained about the related staining to the ceiling. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for internal painting and decoration. However, as the decoration required to the bedroom ceiling resulted from the roof leak, it was appropriate that the landlord agreed to remedy this.

68. The specification of works drawn up on 25 March 2022, after the structural engineers report, included the decoration to the bedroom ceiling, repairs to ease and adjust the bedroom doors and to remedy the blown plaster in the property. The landlord agreed in its complaint response to post inspect the works carried out to the resident’s property and this happened on 13 July 2023. It was again inappropriate that remedial works to the bedroom ceiling remained unresolved from at least as early as May 2021 (when the landlord acknowledged they were outstanding) to the point of the final complaint response (in August 2021) and well beyond.

69. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its complaint response the failures in its service delivery. It accepted that the repairs to the property had not been coordinated, the considerable delays experienced, the communication with the resident had not been clear and the inconvenience that the resident had experienced. The offer of redress that the landlord made for these failings has been assessed below.

The related complaint

70. The landlord’s complaint process states that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at both stages of the complaint procedure and explain if it cannot provide a complaint response.

71. The resident complained to the landlord on 14 April 2021. The landlord acted in accordance with its complaint procedure as the complaint was acknowledged the following day. The acknowledgment to the resident informed her that it would provide its complaint response by 28 April 2021.

72. The landlord did not meet its published complaint handling timescales. It contacted the resident the day after its complaint response was due to advise that it needed more time to respond. It explained that it required information from its contractors and wanted to include in its response the outcome of the inspection that was taking place on 4 May 2021. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (July 2020) informs landlords that if they cannot meet a complaint handling timeframe, they should explain and provide a new date when the response would be received. The landlord acted in line with this as it informed the resident that it would provide its complaint response by 7 May 2021.

73. Though the landlord agreed an extension to provide its complaint response, it did not meet the deadline it set. The landlord provided its complaint response on 14 May 2021. This resulted in the resident waiting 21 working days to receive the landlord’s position on the complaint.

74. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the final stage of the complaint procedure on 21 May 2021. The landlord decided on 25 May 2021 that it would not escalate to the next stage of its final complaint procedure as the resident had not expressed why she was dissatisfied and it had not completed the actions it had agreed in its stage one response. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy which says that where repairs are not completed, the complaint response should still be sent giving the date when it expects to complete the repair and its position on the complaint. Furthermore, the Complaint Handling Code (July 2020) sets out that if a complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction, the complaint should be progressed to the next stage of the complaint procedure.

75. The resident’s complaint escalation email fully set out her concerns and her reasons for escalation. Further, while the landlord concluded that it had not received sufficient information regarding the resident’s dissatisfaction with its complaint response, there is no evidence that it contacted the resident to establish this. Overall, the landlord inappropriately took the decision not to progress the resident’s complaint to the next stage, despite being aware of her outstanding concerns.

76. The landlord agreed to escalate the complaint on 1 July 2021. This was 28 days after the resident had made her request on 21 May 2021. The resident was informed that the landlord would provide its complaint response on 5 August 2021. Overall, the resident waited for 53 working days to receive the landlord’s final complaint response which was not reasonable as its published complaint standard says that the resident should receive this within 10 working days.

77. In its initial complaint response, the landlord awarded the resident £50 for the communication failures that she had experienced. As part of its final complaint review, the landlord appropriately reconsidered the amount and decided that once the works were completed to the property, it would calculate the compensation to be awarded to the resident. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that in August 2023, it paid the resident a compensation award of £4,147.29.

78. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that its compensation award will be dependent on the service failure and will be based on the discretion of the manager. The Ombudsman expects landlords to clearly identify service failures for which it believes compensation should be awarded. This provides transparency and clarity for the resident and assists the landlord in identifying learning from the outcomes of its complaints process.

79. The landlord has not provided a breakdown of the calculation of its assessment of the compensation award for the different elements of the complaint, explaining what factors it has considered and the amounts awarded for each of its service failures in resolving the repairs to the property. Neither is there clarity on the time period that the compensation covers. This Service would expect the compensation award to cover the complaint investigation period from September 2020 to the date that the repairs were completed and assessed as satisfactory. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain how much it awarded for the different elements of the resident’s complaints over what period in order to provide clarity about the basis on which it had awarded the compensation. Its failure to do so was unreasonable.

80. Ultimately, the resident experienced unacceptable delays in getting the kitchen fire door frame satisfactorily repaired, remedial works carried out to a bedroom ceiling and the cracks to the building resolved. All of these took a considerable period of time for the landlord to progress and had a significant impact on the resident’s enjoyment of the property. Also, there would have been disturbance to the resident and her family due to the repairs required to the property such as lifting and removing the floorboards to fit the wall ties.

81. The landlord failed to resolve these matters through its complaints process and it is of concern that the repairs were not completed and an offer of redress was not made until more than two years after the resident’s complaint was submitted. Further, although the landlord has mentioned liaising with its contractors’ management, given the serious nature of its failings in this case, it should have taken thorough steps through its complaints process to learn lessons. Its continued delays after the final complaint response, lack of redress offered through its formal complaint process and lack of lessons learned means that it did not put right the failings identified in its handling of the subsidence reports and the other repairs required to the property.

Determination (decision)

82. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that subsidence is causing damage to the property.

83. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handing of repairs required to the property.

84. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

85. The resident experienced an unacceptable delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s report of damage to the property. It took over a year for the landlord to inspect and investigate the cracks to the property and there were delays in completing the proposed works.

86. In the meantime, the resident experienced a further unnecessary delay in getting the repairs to the kitchen door frame completed. There were contradictions in the landlord’s records regarding these repairs and neither the kitchen door nor the leak-related remedial works were completed within the landlord’s published repair time limits.

87. The landlord did not meet its published complaint handling targets when responding to the resident’s complaint. It unreasonably informed the resident that it would not escalate her complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure when it was aware that her concerns about the kitchen fire door and the cracks to the property remained unaddressed. Its offer of redress was made well outside of the complaints process and the landlord did not demonstrate that it had learned sufficient lessons from the case.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

88. The landlord should write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report, apologising for the service failures identified in this report and confirm how it calculated the £4,147.29 compensation payment.

89. Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should review its handling of this case and create an action plan to show how it will avoid similar failings in future. This should include:

how it will ensure that cases of potential subsidence are investigated and diagnosed promptly;
how it will ensure that residents who live in a property being impacted by potential subsidence are kept informed of progress of investigations;
how it will ensure that its contractors complete repairs within its published timescales and what steps it will take when it becomes apparent that a repair is overdue.

90. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

91. If it has not already done so, the landlord should self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) to identify and improve the record keeping in its repairs service.

92. The landlord should reply to this Service within six weeks of the date of this reports to confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation.