Croydon Council (202104074)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104074

Croydon Council

13 May 2022

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 handling of the resident’s reports about subsidence damage affecting the resident’s property.
The report will also address the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a one-bedroom upper-floor maisonette.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

Repairs guide:

This states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, walls, ﬂoors and ceilings.
It also sets out the types of repair categories used by the landlord and its response times for each category. For ‘non-urgent repairs’ which are described as small simple repairs which are needed to prevent serious inconvenience and keep the property in a reasonable condition, the target response time is 15 working days.
For ‘semi-planned repairs’ which are described as mostly larger non-urgent repairs necessary to keep the property in a reasonable condition e.g. replace external door or replace whole roof; the target response time is 60 working days.

Complaints policy:

This sets out the landlord’s process and its timeframes for responding at each stage of its process, which is 20 working days. If there is any delay then the investigating Officer needs to agree a revised timeframe with the tenant and keep them updated.

Summary of events

The resident has said that she reported internal cracking damage to the landlord in August 2020. However, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence from either the landlord or the resident to show that repair issues were raised at this time.
The available records show that on 19 October 2020 the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord. The correspondence at this time refers to outstanding repairs (cracks in the walls) and a smell coming from the downstairs flat. The resident asked that an investigation be caried out into the lack of communication and poor service she had been receiving.
The correspondence provided by the landlord shows that the property was inspected on 20 November 2020 and the cracking was duly noted and the resident was advised that further investigations were necessary to establish the cause of the cracking. The landlord has not provided a copy of the report following this inspection.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 30 November 2020:
1. Communication issues – it agreed to allocate the resident’s case to another Tenancy Officer to deal with as the current Officer was off work.
2. Repair issues – it said that it was awaiting the findings and recommendations following the recent inspection, including details of the extent of works required and whether or not a decant was necessary.
3. Neighbour issues – it had reported the resident’s concerns about the neighbour to its Tenancy Support Officer who would carry out an investigation and establish what support the neighbour may need. It also agreed to discuss the need for the neighbour to provide access to the surveyor for an inspection to be done in relation to the subsidence issues affecting the whole building.
4. The landlord agreed to keep the resident updated with developments.
Due to the lack of further updates, the resident wrote to the landlord on 26 December 2020 asking for her complaint to be escalated. She reiterated that there were large cracks in the walls and that these had previously been reported and remained unresolved. The last inspection was on 20 November 2020 and she had received no further updates or information about the repairs. She also mentioned her concerns about the downstairs flat.
The landlord’s internal emails on 27 January 2021 shows that its complaint investigations were focussed on possible communication failures and issues around the downstairs neighbour not allowing access for an inspection.
The internal email exchanges between the landlord teams confirmed that no formal reports had been done following the previous visits or inspections. The investigating Officer acknowledged that without these reports it would effectively have to start over again to establish what needed to be done. It was explained to the resident at this point that once it had been able to ascertain the condition and urgency of any repairs, it would look at whether or not a decant was needed.
The landlord’s records confirm that a structural survey was carried out on 29 January 2021 of the resident’s flat. However, it was also noted that the downstairs flat had not yet been inspected due to issues with the tenant. The landlord confirmed that it needed to carry out a similar structural survey to the downstairs flat in order to be able to get a better picture of how the subsidence was effecting the building as a whole.
On 24 February 2021 the landlord issued its Stage 2 complaint response:
1. It apologised for the delay in issuing the Stage 2 response.
2. It accepted that there had been failures and a breakdown of communication between its teams, and that the outcome of the assessment undertaken in November 2020 had not been passed to the Building Works Team to conduct a structural survey. The structural survey had now been done.
3. It apologised for the ongoing delays and the communication issues and said it was now progressing matters further.
4. It explained how the delays occurred and said that its normal procedure was for an initial assessment to be done by an Officer (which was done in November 2020) and the resulting report is then sent to the Asset Management team for further action. However, in this instance, the details of the initial assessment were not formally passed to the relevant team in writing.
5. Instead, the Officer who did the initial assessment noted that due to the severity of the problem a structural survey needed to be carried out, and he made a verbal recommendation for this (without doing a report) to the relevant Manager. However, this verbal recommendation was not actioned.
6. The landlord explained that the staff involved only had the best of intentions and were simply trying to speed up the process by not issuing a formal written report. However, the landlord accepted that on this occasion it actually led to further delays. It said that it had spoken to the staff involved and highlighted the importance of ensuring that the correct process was followed.
7. The structural survey confirmed that further investigations were needed, but that at this stage a decant was not necessary.
8. Going forward it would be arranging a structural survey of the downstairs flat and after that a final report would be issued setting out what works would be carried out and when. It confirmed that it would keep the resident updated.
9. As for the resident’s concerns about the downstairs neighbour, it said it would liaise with the neighbour about the condition of the property and its Tenancy Sustainment Officer will work with external agencies to ensure the neighbour is supported with their living arrangements.
10. The landlord also signposted the resident to general advice about moving home and issues related to her position on the housing register.
11. The landlord explained that if the resident remained unhappy then the final stage of the complaints process was a referral to its Complaints Panel.
As the resident had not received any further updates and/or an action plan, she requested that her complaint be escalated to the final stage on 15 March 2021.
The landlord’s records show that by 25 March 2021 it had still not been able to gain access to inspect the downstairs flat.
The landlord’s Complaints Panel reviewed the complaint on 13 April 2021.
On 15 April 2021 the landlord’s internal emails show that staff involved in the case had been invited to attend the Complaint Panel Review meeting but had failed to attend. The Panel noted its disappointment and said that the lack of co-operation had made it more difficult to make an informed decision. The Panel requested further information to be able to finalise its decision.
The internal correspondence on 21 April 2021 noted that some of the delays had been related to COVID 19 issues and that it had only recently gone back to full working capacity. The landlord accepted that it had not kept the resident updated.
The landlord confirmed that it was actively working with the downstairs neighbour’s support agencies to agree access and/or a decant for the neighbour to allow the structural survey to be done so that a plan of remedial works could be finalised.
The downstairs neighbour agreed to allow access on 22 April 2021 for the structural survey to be done. However, ongoing internal emails showed that the neighbour’s flat was not cleared and the structural engineer felt that a full survey could only be done when the flat was clear of all clutter and obstacles. The landlord was also mindful of the fact that if the engineer had to spend his time de-cluttering he would have to charge extra for this and this was not a good use of funds. It was agreed that it would be better if the neighbour de-cluttered the flat to enable a proper inspection to be carried out. The landlord agreed to continue to work with neighbour’s support co-ordinator to facilitate this.
On 29 April 2021 the internal emails show that the complaints investigation team had noted that no action plan had been agreed and no one was willing to take the lead to push matters forward.
On 4 May 2021 the landlord inspected the downstairs flat and established that it needed to be de-cluttered and cleaned so that the structural engineer could have access to all the walls. Its internal correspondence also noted that the complaint had been active since November 2020 and it was now in May 2021 and no further progress had been made.
The landlord arranged for cleaners to help the downstairs neighbour de-clutter and it was confirmed that the flat was now in a better condition and ready for the engineer’s inspection.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 13 May 2021:
1. It accepted that the repairs team and tenancy services had not actioned any of the issues raised in the complaint.
2. After consideration of all of the information, the panel agreed to uphold the complaint.
3. Tenancy officer(s) failed, for whatever reason, to contact the resident or respond to her communications. A recommendation was made for the Officer(s) involved to give a sincere written apology to the resident and ensure that they responds to future communications in a timely manner. The resident was also to be advised of her housing options and supported to make any relevant housing applications.
4. It accepted that the Repairs Officer had not correctly filed a report after visiting the resident’s property in November 2020, hence no formal action being taken to start works to remedy the cracks to the property. A recommendation was made for the Repairs Officer to take the correct steps to ensure that works can commence on the block as soon as possible. The resident was to be kept updated of scheduled works and timescales for completion.
5. With regard to the downstairs neighbour, it was accepted that the access issues had not been progressed in a timely manner and that this had delayed the repairs. A recommendation was made for the appropriate Officers to work together to resolve the access issues with the neighbour and for the resident to be kept informed of the situation.
The resident then referred the matter to this Service on 19 May 2021.
The final structural engineer’s report was issued on 25 May 2021 and this confirmed the subsidence damage to the building, and whilst there was clear cracks within the resident’s flat, this was, in the engineer’s opinion, ‘not of a significant structural nature’. The recommendations included tree removal works, drainage investigation and repairs as necessary, followed by a period of level monitoring and then superstructure repairs internally. The engineer concluded that ‘I do not consider these structures to be structurally unsafe for the residents currently residing in them. Furthermore, on the 1st floor there were no immediate concerns to the structural condition of the property that in my opinion deemed it unsafe for habitation’.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and this includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Ombudsman is guided by its Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes’.
The Ombudsman has determined this complaint on the basis of the limited evidence made available to it. However, the landlord is reminded of the need for thorough record-keeping, especially when dealing with complex matters potentially involving protracted and lengthy repairs and various third parties such as insurers, surveyors, experts and other affected tenants.
On this point it must be noted that there is a distinct lack of detailed supporting evidence for some of the issues, and the landlord has not fully evidenced all its actions in this case.

Landlord’s handling of the subsidence issues

The terms of the tenancy and the landlord’s repair guide state that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure of the building. As such, once it had been notified of potential structural damage to the property, in the form of visible cracks in the walls, it was required to carry out further investigations to establish the cause of the damage and any potential remedial works needed.
Looking at the facts and the available evidence, with regards to the landlord’s response to the subsidence issue affecting the building itself, it can be seen that, overall, it has not demonstrated that it responded appropriately and/or in a reasonable and timely manner.
The repairs were potentially reported in August 2020 but this cannot be verified due to a lack of repair records from the landlord. What can however be established from the limited available evidence is that the resident logged a formal complaint in October 2020 about ‘outstanding repairs’ which included the subsidence damage (cracks).
From what can be ascertained from the limited evidence is that the issue of potential subsidence damage was brought to the landlord’s attention in October 2020 (if not earlier) and as at the final complaint response in May 2021, some seven months later, the remedial works had not yet been agreed.
The evidence that has been made available shows that there were several periods of inactivity and delays on the part of the landlord. There is no evidence to show that the issues raised were being actively progressed or that the landlord was acting proactively to resolve matters. There was also a lack of meaningful communication and updates given to the resident. Furthermore, the landlord’s own complaints investigation showed a lack of internal co-operation and/or joined up thinking between the landlords’ internal teams and there was no agreed action plan or ownership of the problems encountered on this case.
The landlord has not disputed that the property was inspected in November 2020 and that the need for remedial works was noted at this time, as was the inspecting officer’s opinion that the damage was significant enough to warrant a structural survey. However, it has not been able to provide a copy of this inspection report. Of more concern is that the landlord has acknowledged that the damage to the property was potentially significant, yet this was not formally logged and/or actioned by the repairs team. The landlord has sought to explain that no formal written report was prepared at this time by the inspecting Officer and instead, the findings and the need for a more detailed surveyor’s structural survey was communicated verbally to the relevant team. The landlord has accepted that this was an error and that no further action was taken following the November 2020 inspection.
Similarly, the landlord confirmed in its Stage 2 complaint response in February 2021 that it would draw up an action plan and keep the resident updated of all developments going forward. However, the landlord has not provided a copy of any action plan and there is nothing in its papers to suggest that an action plan was indeed drawn up at this time to deal with the reported repairs. Nor has it evidenced that it kept the resident updated as it promised.
The landlord has acknowledged and accepted that there was a failure to take any follow-up action after the November 2020 inspection. It has said that this failure was in part due to the correct procedure not having been followed. The landlord has also said that its staff had used verbal updates, rather than formal written reports, to try and speed up the process for the resident. That may well be the case, but as acknowledged by the landlord, despite this being done with good intentions, the end result was that no tangible action was taken to progress matters until some two months later following further complaint correspondence from the resident. It was only then that a structural survey was arranged.
The landlord’s internal communications in late January 2021 acknowledged that it would effectively have to start all over again as no one knew what had been agreed at the November 2020 inspection. The lack of an appropriate action plan at the outset and the possible mis-communications between the landlord’s own internal teams has no doubt contributed to the lack of progress in this instance.
The landlord is again reminded that good record-keeping is absolutely vital in such situations so as to avoid exactly this scenario where crucial information is missed and/or not picked up and actioned by the right team. To the landlord’s credit, its complaint investigation staff have recognised this and have expressed their disappointment that the other teams involved in this case have not been forthcoming in providing evidence.
The underlying concern in this case is that the landlord’s records are not clear and do not adequately demonstrate that it acted appropriately. The need for good record-keeping cannot be emphasised enough and it is important not only so that the landlord can provide an efficient and timely service to its tenants, but it also allows for an accurate audit trail of its decision-making after the event which can help in resolving complaints and learning from complaints to improve services. The landlord is therefore reminded of the need to ensure that it maintains clear and accurate records of its actions.
The landlord is also reminded that it is ultimately responsible for ensuring that it discharges its repair responsibilities within a reasonable time. This would mean ensuring that it has clear processes and procedures in place so that actions are recorded and escalated as necessary, and there are mechanisms in place to ensure that works are not inadvertently missed. Again, the need to ensure robust record-keeping cannot be stressed enough.
Whilst it is clear that the landlord has not acted proactively or in a timely manner, it should also be noted that a part of the reason for the delay in completing the final report setting out the required works was due to the difficulties in gaining access to the downstairs property.
The Ombudsman understands that the downstairs neighbour is elderly and has health and other vulnerabilities. As a result, the landlord spent a lot of time working with the neighbour to address potential hoarding within the property. The landlord acted appropriately by liaising with the relevant support agencies helping the neighbour. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises that this may have been a difficult situation for the landlord, it still does not fully explain why it took so long to gain access to the downstairs flat. The landlord has itself acknowledged that it could have been more proactive at the outset.
To sum up, looking at all the available evidence, the need for repairs was brought to the attention of the landlord in October 2020 and it took until May 2021 for a final report to be produced setting out the remedial works that were necessary. The landlord’s explanations for the delays have been considered, and the lack of supporting evidence has also been noted, and the Ombudsman can only reasonably conclude that there was maladministration in its handling of this case. The landlord has failed to respond appropriately to the repair reports and has failed to carry out the repairs within a timely manner.
The landlord has rightly acknowledged and apologised for its delays and lack of communication. However, it has failed to appropriately consider if compensation was warranted for these failures.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation for the maladministration, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including the inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It also considers that any compensation needs to be proportionate to the severity of the service failure and the impact on the resident.
Having considered all the facts and the available evidence, the Ombudsman has taken into account the landlord’s overall handling of the issues in this case, and the impact of its failures, and its explanations and apologies. Taking into account all the above, and in light of the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, it considers that an award of £350 compensation would be reasonable in this case.

Landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its complaints policy which sets out, in general terms, how it handles complaints, including the timeframes for its responses.
In this case, the complaint was logged on 19 October 2020 and the Stage 1 response was not issued until 30 November 2020, which was outside of the policy timeframe of 20 working days.
Similarly, the complaint was escalated on 26 December 2020, and the Stage 2 response was not issued until 24 February 2021, which was again outside of the policy timeframe of 20 working days.
The last complaint escalation was on 15 March 2021 and the final complaint response was not issued until 13 Macy 2021, again exceeding its response timeframes.
In addition, it is also noted (and recognised by the landlord’s own complaints investigation team) that its internal departments had not co-operated with the Complaints Team and this had hampered the complaint resolution. Furthermore, the Officers involved in making the decisions on the case had failed to participate in the Complaint Panel Review meeting, and this was not helpful or conducive to resolving the complaint.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to use complaints as a learning tool and where there are opportunities for learning and making improvements as a result of a complaint, the landlord should actively encourage its staff to work together in order to do so. It is clear that this did not happen in this case.
Looking at the overall handling of the complaint itself and taking into account the failures noted above, the Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation of £150 would be warranted in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about subsidence damage affecting the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint.

Reasons

There were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports and concerns about the subsidence damage within her property. It did not respond to the these in a timely manner, and whilst it recognised that there had been delays and a lack of progress, and it apologised for this, it failed to consider compensation for these failures.
There were shortcomings in its handling of the complaint, in that there were delays in its responses at every stage and a failure to engage with the process.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. pay the resident £350 compensation in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about subsidence affecting the resident’s property;
2. pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the identified service failures in its complaint handling in this case;
3. if not already done so recently, the landlord to formally apologise in writing to the resident for the failures in its handling in this case;
4. if not already done so recently, the landlord to provide the resident with a detailed and up-to-date action plan setting out exactly what stage the remedial works are presently at, what needs to happen next, together with estimated timeframes for further actions;
5. as this report is only looking at events up until the final complaint response in May 2021, the landlord to advise the resident of her current options with regards to any decant and/or management transfer options as appropriate.

Recommendations

Given the findings noted above, the landlord ought to consider the issues raised in this case and look at how it can improve its record-keeping so as to ensure that it can adequately demonstrate the actions it takes in response to a repair request.