GreenSquareAccord Limited (202006337)

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006337

Greensquare Group Limited

31 August 2023

(Updated following review on 18 June 2024)

                         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:

 

1. The landlord’s handling of the report of subsidence.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The level of compensation.

Background

2. The resident became an Assured Tenant of the property on 5 May 2008. The property was occupied by the resident, her daughter and pets. The resident suffered from mental and physical ill health including a disability that required a wet room.

 

3. The terms of the tenancy have not been made available. However, the tenancy is subject to S.11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which places an obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house, amongst other things. The law requires landlords to carry out repairs within a reasonable period of time.

 

4. The tenancy is also subject to the implied term of Quiet Enjoyment. This is the right to enjoy/use the property without undue interference from matters such as outstanding repairs.

 

5. The landlord operates a Responsive Repairs Policy that considers a resident’s vulnerability when deciding how quickly to respond. Repairs are classified as emergency repairs (24 hours to make safe from repair report) and non-emergency repairs (28 calendar days from report. If an inspection is needed this should be completed in the first seven days, leaving 21 days for the repair to be completed).

 

6. The landlord’s compensation policy set guidelines for compensating customers including family members who:

 

1. lose the use of part of their home or need to move home through permanent or temporary relocation through no fault of their own.
2. experience loss or inconvenience due to a service failure.
3. incur additional costs or charges due to the landlord’s actions or inaction.

 

7. The compensation policy states that are as far as possible compensation payments will be decided and offered with the aim of returning a customer to the same position they would have been in if the failure had not taken place.

 

8. The compensation policy has several definitions.

 

1. Compensation – a payment for loss or distress (example unable to use part of their home due to a severe leak).
2. Gesture of Goodwill – a discretionary or voluntary payment in recognition of inconvenience or distress such as delays to work or poor communication.
3. Reimbursement – a payment or refund for money spent on services or products such as removal costs.

 

9. The compensation policy states that discretionary compensation could be in addition to statutory compensation and will be considered when:

 

1. services normally provided are not to the required standard.
2. customers suffer loss due to failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs.
3. customers suffer loss due to failure of services.
4. service failure causes distress.
5. customers have to spend excessive time and trouble achieving a solution to a problem or complaint. This could be due to the landlord not following policies or not effectively communicating with customers for example.

 

10. The landlord operates a Home Loss, Decant and Disturbance Policy which sets out the approach the landlord will take when a resident has to move home to enable major works to take place or if the property is to be re-modelled, demolished or disposed of.

 

11. The policy has the following definitions:

 

1. “Decant” – where a household moves from their current home to another on a temporary basis, because works or repairs cannot be completed with them in occupation. The landlord’s policy does not provide for any payment to be made to the resident for a Decant.
2. “Home Loss payment” – statutory payment made to a tenant whose circumstances meet the criteria in force at the time and who are required by a landlord to move home to enable demolition or redevelopment of the property. The policy allows the landlord to make home loss payments to customers who do not fit the criteria for Home Loss. Where a Home Loss payment is made the customer will not usually qualify for another allowance and/or compensation. However, removals will usually be paid for.
3. Disturbance Payments – a payment made to a tenant who is required to move to another property temporarily or does not qualify for a Home Loss payment and is required to move permanently. The payment is to cover reasonable costs related to the move.
4. Compensation – Under the Home loss and Decant Policy compensation is defined as a discretionary payment made to a customer as compensation for a service failure or other loss, sometimes referred to as a gesture of goodwill.

 

12. The landlord operates a complaint policy that accepts complaints in a range of ways including in person, by phone, email, website, letter or form. A complaint is defined as any expression or dissatisfaction with the services they provide or have failed to provide.

 

13. The landlord will not treat as a complaint, a complaint which has or is similar to one that has already been responded to and closed without new evidence or information. The landlord will not normally consider complaints that relate to things that happened more than six months ago.

 

14. The landlord’s formal complaint process has two stages. A stage one (Investigation) complaint will be assigned to the Service Improvement Team. It will be acknowledged in two working days and a response given in 10 working days from acknowledgement. A stage two (Review) complaint will be acknowledged in two working days, an internal meeting with the appropriate personnel held within 10 working days of acknowledgement and a response in 10 working days following the meeting.

Summary of Events

15. In August 2015 the resident reported to the landlord large cracks appearing on multiple internal and external walls of the property. The landlord inspected and concluded that the problem was thermal expansion. The resident expressed disagreement with the landlord’s assessment, claiming that the problem was subsidence and informed the landlord she would be arranging her own survey.

 

16. After several weeks the landlord investigated further and subsequently concluded that the problem was subsidence. The resident and the landlord began discussions about a decant property so that the landlord would have vacant possession for repairs to be undertaken.

 

17. On 23 October 2015 the landlord contacted the resident at work around 2.30pm and gave her a few hours to collect what possessions she could and vacate the property as it was considered to be dangerous and at risk of collapsing. The resident had to rush and get her daughter, possession and several pets out of the property.

 

18. The landlord booked the resident into a hotel where at check in, issues arose about who was responsible for payment, what was paid for (meals and level of amenities) and the length of stay. The hotel was initially booked for three days but the resident remained there for two weeks.

 

19. On 25 October 2015 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. There is no evidence that this complaint was acknowledged or responded to under the landlord’s complaint procedure. It was not referred to by the landlord throughout the file.

 

20. Following two weeks stay at the hotel the resident was placed in a decant property around 6 November 2015 awaiting the completion of repairs to her property.

 

21. After residing in the decant property for nine months and following numerous communications and attempts to communicate with the landlord the resident made a second complaint on 19 June 2016.

 

22. The complaint concerned the:

 

1. lack of a response to the October 2015 complaint.
2. condition of the decant property.
3. failure to account for her disability.
4. quality of communication.
5. delay in repairs to the permanent property.

 

23. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 12 July 2016. The landlord:

 

1. explained the complexities of the investigation to establish the cause of the subsidence (these included history of land ownership, settlement/make up, adjacent building works, adjacent tree growth and subsequent removals, invasive foundation survey).
2. accepted that communication was not of the standard to be expected.
3. advised that a specialist would be instructed within a week to fix the problem and the works should take one month.
4. the decant property did not reflect the standard set out in its policy for decanting.
5. and an apology was given.

 

24. On 26 September 2016 the resident made her third complaint to the landlord about:

 

1. The work to her property not being completed as promised.
2. The lack of communication since the landlord’s complaint response on 12 July 2016.
3. Provided the landlord with an inventory of all the things wrong with the ongoing repairs to the property and pictures following her own inspection.
4. The lack of anyone taking ownership.

 

25. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this complaint and it has not been referred to by the landlord throughout the file.

 

26. The landlord commissioned property consultants on 5 October 2016 to prepare a survey of the property. The survey noted extensive cracking throughout the property (cracks were noted to the living room, stairway, kitchen, first floor front right bedroom, landing, WC, first floor rear right bedroom); tree roots noted around the foundation; minor deflections to floors and cracks to the kitchen floor; doors that cannot be shut or out of alignment; loose brick work (potentially hazardous); garden gate and fence reflected movement. A schedule of works and costs was included.

 

27. On 9 October 2017 (two years after being temporarily decanted) the resident returned to the property.

 

28. On 11 February 2018, via her representative, the resident made her fourth complaint to the landlord about:

 

1. major issues outstanding upon her return to the property (this included a lack of decent water supply resulting in the water tank having to be drained and the plumbing reworked, reused kitchen units where the doors were out of alignment and glued together, builders waste strewn across the back garden, power and aerial sockets removed and never replaced, boiler making banging noise when switched on, back door insecure when latched).
2. agreements not fulfilled (this included a lean-to or conservatory and chosen colour tiles for the kitchen).
3. poor communication.        
4. and the £4,000 offered as a goodwill gesture.

 

29. The complaint was acknowledged on 14 February 2018. The landlord informed the resident that part of the complaint related to issues raised in the complaint of June 2016 and would not be re-considered.

 

30. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 27 February 2018. The landlord:

 

1. Acknowledged that communication had been below service standards.
2. Explained that delays in progressing the works were due to fundamental restructuring of the property services department, and unforeseen staffing recruitment issues.
3. Considered snagging works as only minor items.
4. Gave reasons why agreements to install a lean-to or a conservatory and the chosen colour tiles were unfulfilled.
5. Concluded that the offer of compensation of £4,000 referred to as a goodwill offer was a fair amount for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family. The landlord explained that it is a registered social landlord committed to providing good quality housing for those in need. Any profit that is made is reinvested back into the company and is used to provide more housing as well as improving the standard of the homes we already own. For this reason, and as detailed above, it is important that we spend our money in an efficient, responsible and appropriate way.
6. Stated that all direct costs of the resident were paid in full.
7. Apologised for failing the resident and her family.

 

31. On 9 March 2018 the resident requested that the complaint proceed to stage two. The request was acknowledged on 13 March 2018 and a response issued on 11 April 2018 that concluded:

 

1. That all snagging issues had been addressed other than the works to the garden. The issues with the boiler is something new and the resident is to be contacted to resolve the this. The back door is to be replaced.
2. The resident was returned early to the property for her own benefit and it was unfortunate that matters remained outstanding at the time. Discussions about having a lean-to or a conservatory should not have been had as this was never realistic, it is sorry for raising the resident’s expectations.              The wrong kitchen tiles being fitted was an oversight and an apology was given, however, it was not reasonable or cost effective to replace them and they were perfectly functional.
3. All out of pocket expenses were paid. The payment (£4,000) in relation to distress and inconvenience that may have been caused as well as recognising that matters were not handled as they should is generous and will not be increased.
4. Apologised for problems with communication and the handling of the situation and that the resident believes she was treated with contempt.
5. The situation with this property has been an exceptional occurrence which unfortunately has been exacerbated by the delays in resolving the structural issues. A number of improvements and changes have been made since this situation occurred which means that moving forward such an issue would be identified and resolved much faster. Our Property Services department has undergone an extensive restructure which means that we now have more resources and knowledge to manage such a large project. In addition, specialist training has now been provided to help our staff better identify structural issues and therefore the necessary actions to resolve quicker.
6. Concluded that the complaint was dealt with appropriately at stage 1. Whilst it agrees that the response is not as thorough as it would hope, the foundation of the response remains the same; it accept that there have been failings and have apologised for these but it appreciate that that some of the answers to questions and queries may not be what the resident was hoping.

 

32. The resident had begun to notice signs of subsidence shortly upon her return to the property. By May 2018 it was being monitored.

 

33. The resident engaged the assistance of a designated person (her local MP) to pursue her complaint. This service has not seen the communication from the designated person to the landlord. The landlord responded on 2 July 2018. The response was candid with admissions that:

 

1. Elementary errors were made; The team struggled to manage the project and it should have been managed by another team; The team was undergoing a significant internal restructure; Some of the staff involved in the project had left.
2. The level of service was not what they would usually hope to deliver.
3. There was poor communication.
4. Many lessons have been learnt. They now have new systems and processes in place to ensure customers do not have the same experience as the resident.
5. The resident did not lose her home so was not entitled to a home loss payment. This is only paid when a customer has to make a permanent move to another property, not a temporary decant like this.
6. Disturbance payments – these are made for both permanent and temporary home loss. They cover all the expenses associated with a home move, so removal costs, carpets and curtains, decorating and cooker connections for example. The principle being that customers should not be left ‘out of pocket’ as a result of them having to move out of their home. We covered all of [the resident’s] expenses associated with the decant from, and back to, her home.
7. It is not practice to compensate the customer for having to move on a temporary basis. A home owner who had to move out of their home for subsidence or damp work would have their expenses covered by their insurance company but would not be ‘compensated’ for having to do so.
8. We accept things did go wrong in this case. Some of this was because our team were trying to accommodate [the resident], particularly in attempting to get her back to her home quickly, and some of this was down to the inexperience of the staff handling the case.
9. The compensation of £4,000 was generous and was for the unnecessary distress and inconvenience beyond that which you would reasonably expect when having to decant your home. This was for the poor handling of the issue. They had to be mindful that they are a charitable organisation. Our annual surplus is required to meet our funding obligations and to ensure we can continue to deliver more affordable homes. It also gave as examples some cases published by the Ombudsman where awards were given. They thought about reducing the sum offered but thought this would not be well received and that the Ombudsman has on occasions reduced the amount of compensation.
10. An apology was given.

 

34. On 18 December 2018 the landlord commissioned a Specific Defect Survey. The survey noted that cracks appeared as soon as the resident returned to the property and the doors and windows were sticking. The survey concluded that whatever works were undertaken have not been successful and is likely to have been done incorrectly. The rear wall of the property had not been rebuilt as per earlier specification and the cracks to it had been poorly repointed. It was noted that movement is continuing and further works will now be required.

 

35. A further survey was commissioned dated 26 April 2019 that concluded that the underpinning was incorrectly constructed and as such would need to be removed and completed correctly.

 

36. On 30 September 2019 an updated survey was produced which noted that the damage was progressing. Doors will not close or they stick in their frames and new cracks were noted behind radiators and in repaired walls.

 

37. The landlord entered into discussions with the resident about a further decant for works. The resident was adamant that she be permanently decanted and this was agreed.

 

38. The resident pursued the option of a permanent move through the local authority housing register and a management transfer of the landlord for several years. At times she engaged her local MP and councillors to progress matters on her behalf. The resident also pursued the issue of the level of compensation she had been offered by the landlord.

 

39. In a letter dated 19 June 2020 to the resident, the landlord informed her that her property was being monitored for movement and if it is deemed that her safety is at imminent risk she will be moved as a matter of urgency. This could mean fewer options or no choice to where she would be moved.

 

40. In relation to the financial offer and a property that had been identified for a move the landlord said it will:

 

1. pay for carpets and flooring for a property you move to including the cost of laying them up to the value of £200 per room.
2. arrange for the property to be decorated using a colour scheme of your choice up to the value of £100 per room (for the purposes of this and flooring a separate bathroom and WC are classed as one room).
3. adapt your bathroom making it suitable for you taking into account your disabilities.
4. make an additional disturbance payment to you of £2,000.
5. This offer is for ONE move only. You can decide to use it for a move to a two bedroom home, or save it for if we find a suitable three bed house. We will pay and arrange the removals for both moves as well as install any minor adaptations you need.
6. We are making this full and final offer taking into account:

1. the situation you find yourself in now.
2. the history of your case.
3. the current financial climate.
4. the landlord’s charitable status and needing to balance the needs of all our customers with a limited budget.

 

41. The resident responded on 25 June 2020. A copy of the response has not been seen by this service.

 

42. An internal email of the landlord dated the 30 June 2020 referenced the property that had been offered to the resident for a permanent decant. It said “it’s a shame we didn’t realise the poor condition before she was taken for a viewing, the housing officer confirmed that it was in a poor state and they wouldn’t be happy if they had been offered it”. So in short below is the bullet points of what we discussed:

• Kitchen needs work, the cupboards don’t match and it needs replacing.
• Back fence is in disrepair.
• Outside the front of the house the slabs are broken and uneven, it looks as though the ground may have sunk.
• Bath – will need to be replaced, it is not possible to use the overhead shower with the current bath as it has a sloped back so you wouldn’t be able to stand underneath it.
• Back door – check the lock.
• Resident would need hand rails in the bath room and a step to get into the bath.
• Boiler doesn’t look like its fit for purpose.

 

43. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 10 July 2020 saying that it had worked on an improved offer. The landlord set out the work to be undertaken at the permanent decant property under consideration. It also offered a disturbance payment of £3,000. The landlord said the total costs of the works together with the money we are offering for disturbance comes to a total of £15,500 and that it will pay for removals.

 

44.  In a letter to the resident dated 24 July 2020 following earlier communication the landlord said you mentioned you would like a payment of at least £1000 per year since the issues began five years ago. You have already received a disturbance payment of £4,000 for the initial problems you had and the inconvenience you experienced having to move away from your home at that time. Our new offer of a £3,000 disturbance payment is in recognition of the more recent inconvenience you’ve experienced. This will make our total disturbance payments to you £7,000. The resident continued to challenge the amount offered.

 

45. On 26 September 2020 the resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance with her complaint. The resident wanted the landlord to compensate her at a level that reflects the matters complained of.

 

46. The Ombudsman liaised with the landlord and the landlord accepted that they had not addressed the issue of the level of compensation satisfactorily. The landlord proceeded to deal with this issue as a formal complaint.

 

47. On 5 November 2020 the resident permanently moved.

 

48. On 1 April 2021 the landlord issued their complaint response. The landlord stated that:

 

1. There were previous complaints the first in June 2016 and the second in February 2018 and it will not be responding further on this matter in line with the Complaints Policy which states “we will not treat the following as a complaint… A complaint which has or is similar to one that has already been responded to and closed without new evidence or information.”
2. It will not normally consider complaints that relate to things that happened more than six months ago. However, it has not specifically progressed your dissatisfaction with the amount of compensation offered to you, and therefore it is this aspect of your recent contact with the Housing Ombudsman that is investigated.
3. You moved back to your property in 2018. It became apparent towards the end of 2019 that there continued to be issues with subsidence.
4. The final offer made was:

1. proposed work to her new permanent property; allowance for carpets; removals, disconnections and connections.
2. The costs of the works together with the money offered for floor coverings, decoration and disturbance came to a total of £15,600.
3. The compensation offered of £7,000 is fair for the disruption and inconvenience you and your family have experienced.
4. The additional work detailed to your new permanent home was in excess of £10,000 and above their re-let standard. We agreed to it in recognition of the difficult and stressful situation you and your family were in, but this was a Goodwill gesture and not a formal obligation.
5. They are a registered social landlord and any profit made is reinvested. It is important that they spend their money in an efficient, responsible and appropriate way and with that in mind it would not be appropriate to increase the amount offered.
6. The landlord understood that the resident felt these additional things should not be taken into account when considering the amount of disturbance money.
7. The subsidence was not caused by negligence.
8. The communication previously was poor and we apologised for this.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

49. Normally, under paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman would not consider a complaint that had not been referred to it within a period of 12 months after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

 

50. The complaints made in 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2020 would not normally be revisited. However, in the landlord’s communication with the resident and the Ombudsman, the landlord confirmed that they failed to specifically address the resident’s dissatisfaction with the level of compensation. The landlord revisited the level of compensation awarded, or failed to be awarded, in those earlier complaints when determining that the overall sum of £7,000 was adequate.

 

51. In order for the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether the overall sum of £7,000 was adequate it needs to consider the circumstances on which the landlord based the award. The Ombudsman has therefore investigated how the landlord dealt with the issue of subsidence and all associated matters which then informs the Ombudsman of what is an adequate level of compensation.

 

52. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Policy states that one of the factors that might be taken into account when determining the overall financial compensation is the landlord’s own compensation policies. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s compensation policy and has applied it throughout this investigation. This is particularly important in this case as a main complaint has been the level of compensation awarded by the landlord.

Landlord’s handling of report of subsidence

53. S.11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires that after a disrepair is reported the landlord carries out repairs within a reasonable period of time. The landlord’s repairs policy state that non-emergency repairs would be completed 28 calendar days from report and that if an inspection is needed this would be carried out within seven days, leaving 21 days for the repair to be completed.

 

54. Given the fact that the issue was extensive subsidence it would not be reasonable to have held the landlord to its repairs policy of 28 days for repairs including seven days for inspection. From the facts of the case the Ombudsman has taken the view that a reasonable period of time would be ten months. This would give the landlord sufficient time to carry out an inspection; correctly diagnose the problem; arrange a decant property; engage contractors; complete the works and make good any damage to the décor (this includes the period of six months monitoring recommended by the 2016 survey). The landlord would be able to carry out multiple actions at the same time and vacant possession would facilitate the speed of the works.

 

55. However, at the outset the landlord failed to take the appropriate actions. It is not known if the landlord inspected the property within the seven days set out in its repairs policy, however, the inspection that did occur resulted in the landlord misdiagnosing the cause of the cracks. The landlord concluded that it was thermal expansion and so did not treat the issue as subsidence and begin to take the necessary steps towards rectifying the problem. This led to several weeks of unreasonable delays during which the resident went through the time and trouble to robustly challenge the landlord’s findings whilst finding the deterioration of her property distressing.

 

56. It is for the landlord to have or commission the relevant expertise to carry out inspections and accurately diagnose problems so that appropriate action can be taken within a reasonable time frame.

 

57. The landlord reinspected the property and rightly concluded thereafter that the cause was subsidence and vacant possession was required. However, the landlord failed to appreciate the urgency of the structural defect and engaged in prolonged dialogue with the resident about a decant property whilst the property became structurally dangerous. The failure to urgently provide the resident with a decant property resulted in more delays.

 

58. On Friday, 23 October 2015 (some two months after the landlord was notified of the subsidence) the landlord gave the resident a few hours to vacate her property due to a risk of it collapsing. It is evident that such an unplanned and chaotic move would not have been necessary if the landlord had appreciated the severity of the problem, undertaken a risk assessment and taken appropriate action in the two months that had expired.

 

59. From 23 October 2015 the landlord had vacant possession of the property to undertake the necessary work at pace. However, on19 June 2016 (some eight months later) with the resident having no idea when she would return to the property she made a complaint. In the landlord’s complaint response dated 12 July 2016the landlord explained the delays to be as a result of; the severity and complexity of the structural issues, establishing history of property ownership, settlement/make-up, adjacent building works, tree growth and subsequent removals.As will be seen later in the report when a more candid reason was provided, the landlord said that the delays was due to it making elementary errors, the staff being inexperienced to deal with this repair, the repair should have been dealt with by another team and the team underwent significant restructure with people leaving.

 

60. The landlord’s response said that they had an action plan to progress the matter and would instruct a well experienced and trusted structural engineering company in the next week or so to underpin the rear of the property. This will stabilise the foundations and it would make good any internal and external cracking and associated decorating works. The landlord stated that the works would take approximately one month to complete giving the resident the reasonable belief that she would return to her property in mid-August 2016.

 

61. It is unexplained why the landlord gave the resident the expectation that she would return to her property by mid August 2016. It would be reasonable for the landlord to know that this would raise her expectations. At that point the landlord had not undertaken a technical survey by a reputable company to identify and fix the underlying cause. In fact it was not until 5 October 2016 that the landlord undertook such an exercise (two months after it said the resident would return to the property).

 

62. The works to the property was not completed for a further 12 months from the date of the survey (5 October 2016) culminating in the resident returning to the property on 9 October 2017 (approximately two years after being decanted).

 

63. On the resident’s return to the property she informed the landlord of several outstanding items of repair related to the subsidence. This effectively meant that the original disrepair was not yet completed. Effective repairs meant not only rectifying the underlying issue but also any items that were damaged because of it, or damaged in order to effect repairs including decoration.

 

64. The resident reported that the plumbing was in a poor state andthere was no decent supply of water.The kitchen unit doors which were reused were out of alignment and door fronts were glued together because previous screw holes could not be used. There was waste strewn across the garden from the building works. Power and aerial sockets that were removed had not been replaced. The boiler was now making a banging noise when in use. The back door could be opened with minimal pressure when latched. These were matters that were apparent on the resident’s immediate return to the property and signalled that the subsidence works was not thoroughly completed.

 

65. The resident made a stage one complaint in February 2018 and stage two in March 2018 where she highlighted that the repairs had not been completed.

 

66. Emails provided by the resident shows communication with the landlord from 11 May 2018 about monitoring cracks in the property. It was later determined from surveys in December 2018, April 2019 and September 2019that the subsidence had not been properly repaired. The resident continued to suffer from the effects of major cracks in multiple walls.

 

67. Not only were there extensive unreasonable delays by the landlord in diagnosis of the problem, provision of decant property and commencing works, but the work was defective and ancillary disrepair remained outstanding when the resident returned to the property. Effectively after two years and eight months the property was not repaired.

 

68. In a response to the designated person’s intervention dated 2 July 2018 the landlord gave an account of why things went wrong. It said elementary errors were made; the team struggled to manage the project as they normally did small scale repairs; the repairs should have been handled by another team; they had significant internal restructuring of the repairs team; some staff left; they did not have the right systems.
69. At this time the landlord did not appreciate the significance of the cracks reappearing in the property. However, a Specific Defect Survey commissioned on 12 December 2018 by the landlord noted that since moving back in the property the resident began to notice cracks and that the windows and doors were sticking. The report noted that cracking was beginning to occur around the property in various locations internal and external, and doors were sticking. Repointing to the rear external wall had been carried out poorly. The report concluded that it is likely the repairs have been done incorrectly. Movement is continuing to occur and further works will be required.

 

70. Further surveys commissioned by the landlord dated April 2019 stated that underpinning works were scheduled along with extensive cosmetic repairs and a significant area of brick wall was to be demolished and rebuilt. For some unknown reason the schedule of repairs that was prepared was not adhered to and the building contractor installed his own scheme of underpinnings. The surveyor had conducted the survey in December 2018 and noted that further movement appears to have occurred. As the landlord did not hold records of any significance as to the works that was carried trial holes were dug around the property to establish what works had been carried out.  The survey concluded that the underpinning work undertaken is not effectively underpinning and it is not taking the support from the building. It was also not a full replacement foundation as it is simply a blob of concrete which is nibbed under the existing foundation. The concrete is in essence putting additional load onto the ground adjacent to the wall as opposed to stabilising it. Storm drains had not been connected correctly. The supposed underpinning is not at the correct depth. They considered that the property is still moving. The property needed to be underpinned and this would be more difficult as they would have to remove the supposed underpinning.

 

71. The survey carried out in September 2019 was just to assess whether damage was still occurring to the property. Photographs were attached showing that damage is progressing and additionally some doors will not close or they stick in their frames. Additional cracks were noticed.

 

72. The resident continued to live in a property in a state of disrepair. In communication from the landlord dated 19 June 2020 the resident was put on notice that if there was significant change in movement that puts her safety at imminent risk she would have to move out as a matter of urgency. The resident continued to live in these conditions until 5 November 2020.

 

73. The property was in a state of disrepair from August 2015 to November 2020. The length of time which the resident lived in the property whilst it was in disrepair was August 2015 to 23 October 2015 (approximately two months) and 9 October 2017 to 5 November 2020 (three years and 28 days) a total of three years and three months. The landlord is allowed a reasonable period of a month to find the resident a decant property.

 

74. The landlord’s handling of the report of subsidence amounted to severe maladministration.

 

75. The resident lived in the property for this period of time with significant and extensive cracking throughout internal and external walls. The resident reported that as the cracks would widen dust would constantly fall all over the property. Some cracks were at ceiling level. She also had cracks in her kitchen floor. This is a health and safety trip hazard especially in a place such as the kitchen. Multiple doors in the property would either not close or when closed become stuck in the frame. This would require the resident to daily use force with the doors or do not close them at all. The resident lived in the property with the continuous stress of anticipating that the property would collapse. This led to her been given hours to leave the property in October 2015 due to risk of imminent collapse. In June 2020 she was also put on notice that she might have to be moved in an emergency if the property became dangerous again. The property was also cosmetically unsightly and interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the same.

 

76. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for payment where customers suffer loss due to failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs. The loss identified in this section of this report is the physical, tangible and material loss the resident suffered for the period when she lived in her home in a state of disrepair. The landlord must pay the resident the sum of £1,500 per year for the period of three years and two months totalling £4,750. Further compensation is considered below under other headings to come to the overall sum.

Provision of the decant property

77. Given the extensive nature of the subsidence and the works that were required it was necessary that the resident be temporarily decanted. There was sufficient time for this to be a planned move (August 2015 to 23 October 2015). However, due to the landlord’s failure to correctly diagnose the problem, appreciate its severity and competently manage the move a period of two months elapsed without sufficient progress in decanting the resident.

 

78. On 23 October 2015 the resident was moved into a hotel after been given a few hours’ notice, resulting in her having to leave work. The resident remained in the hotel for two weeks with her daughter. The hotel was neither adequate or suitable alternative accommodation and was avoidable if better use was made of the available time to arrange a decant. |The resident did not have cooking facilities, and laundry facilities were not at her convenience. It was unsettling for the resident who had to make immediate and compromising adjustments to continue to go to work and unsettling for her daughter who had to adjust and attend school. The resident did not have her pets that brought her companionship and comfort. The cat was placed in a cattery and specialist care found for the tortoises. Due to the resident’s disabilities she required a wet room which was in her home. This was not replicated at the hotel.

 

79. Within two days of the resident being in the hotel she made a complaint to the landlord. The resident said she was assured that the room, breakfast and evening meal had been paid for, however, the resident had to hand them her credit card and she cannot afford the charges. The landlord said it was meant to be for the weekend but the resident remained there for two weeks.  The landlord should therefore compensate the resident for the physical loss of a suitable decant property for that period.

 

80. On 6 November 2015 the resident was placed in a decant property where she remained until 9 October 2017 (a period of one year and 11 months).

 

81. The resident formally complained about the decant property in June 2016. The resident said it did not have a wet room as her permanent property did, to cater for her disability. She said the property was not disable friendly. The resident said the landlord has offered no help whatsoever with her personal welfare and she will state on record living in the house is detrimental to her health and wellbeing and may well be contributing to the severe problems she is having with her back.

 

82. The landlord’s response failed to show and understanding of the needs of the resident and its obligation under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord admitted that the decant property was not tailored to her specific medical needs. It said it tried its utmost to meet as many of her requirements. It said that the lack of a wet room was far from ideal, a grab rail was fitted to assist.

 

83. No offer of compensation was made in the complaint response. Following three further complaints and then the intervention of a designated person the landlord explained its reasoning for this. The landlord said “… it is not practice to compensate the customer for having to move on a temporary basis. A home owner who had to move out of their home for subsidence or damp work, would have their expenses covered by their insurance company but would not be ‘compensated’ for having to do so”.

 

84. The landlord’s Decant policy states “When asking customers to move from their home on a temporary basis or to allow the property to be replaced with a new build home, we will seek to provide alternative accommodation from within our own stock. This will be a property which is at least to our void standard”. The policy further states “An assessment of housing and support needs will be undertaken so that we can capture our customer needs and any medical evidence to identify a suitable decant property”. The policy states that “In exceptional circumstances we will consider leasing a private rented property. These are when no property is available from existing vacancies that:

• is large enough for the current household.
• is, or can reasonably be adapted for the needs of the current household. Needs must be confirmed and evidenced by a qualified medical practitioner”.

 

85. The landlord failed to execute its decant policy in meeting the medical needs of the resident. The resident complained about this matter in June 2016 and the landlord could have obtained the evidence from a qualified practitioner and make reasonable adaptations or find a suitably adapted property. The resident remained in the decant property for a further 16 months after her complaint.

 

86. The landlord has failed to give suitable consideration to its responsibility to the resident under the Equality Act 2010. Perhaps it was thought unnecessary as the resident would only be in the property temporarily. However, the resident remained in the decant property for almost two years.

 

87. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for payment where customers suffer loss due to a service failure. The failure here was in not adhering to its decant policy resulting in the resident suffering the loss of having a suitably adapted property. The loss been compensated at this section of this report is the physical, tangible and material loss the resident suffered as a result of the state of the decant property.

 

88. The landlord should compensate the resident the sum of sum of £1,000 per year for one year and 11 months totalling £1,916 for her time in the decant property. The landlord should also compensate the resident the sum of £200 for her two weeks in the hotel when she lacked the majority of her home facilities. This is a total sum of £2,116.

Complaint Handling

89. The landlord’s complaint procedure states that they will ensure:

 

1. customers feel respected and are taken seriously.
2. the landlord is attentive and empathetic.
3. the landlord investigate fully all the issues raised.
4. problems are resolved quickly.
5. the landlord learn from their mistakes.

 

90. The resident’s first complaint to the landlord was on 25 October 2015. The complaints procedure required an acknowledgement in two working days and a response in 10 working days. This did not happen. The complaint procedure requires that the landlord:

• take ownership of issues and say sorry if we have made a mistake.

• customers feel respected and are taken seriously.

• are attentive and empathetic.

• investigate fully all of the issues raised.

• problems are resolved quickly.

• learn from our mistakes.

With no acknowledgement and response the landlord failed to do all of the above.

 

91. The resident’s second complaint was made on 19 June 2016. It is not known when, or if, the complaint was acknowledged, however, the landlord provided its response on 12 July 2016, which is 11 days short of its 10 working days target.

 

92. At the commencement of the complaint the resident stated that her first complaint to the landlord in October 2015 has been completely disregarded. The resident said this was her second complaint. This was an opportunity for the landlord to address its earlier failings with the resident’s first complaint and put things right. However, the landlord ignored this aspect of the complaint and did not address it in their response.

 

93. The landlord failed to take ownership of this issue and say sorry; failed to make the resident feel respected and taken seriously; failed to be attentive and empathetic and failed to investigate fully all the issues raised. The landlord’s response redefined the complaint to be about the current permanent property and the decant property and omitted previous complaint handling failures.

 

94. With regards to the unreasonable delays with repairs (which at this point was 10 months since it was reported in August 2015) the landlord’s response was not candid. The landlord blamed the severity and complexity of the structural issues; land ownership; adjacent building works; tree growth and invasive survey for the delays. However, in much later communication the landlord informed the designated person engaged by the resident that elementary errors were made; the team struggled to manage the project; it should have been managed by another team; there was significant internal restructure of the department; and staff leaving.

 

95. None of the reasons given in this complaint response was later cited as a cause for delay when the landlord responded to the designated person about the same matters. The more likely scenario was that there was a combination of the factors mentioned in this complaint response and that given to the designated person. However, the landlord appeared to deflect the delay solely to matters beyond its control. This is not taking ownership. The landlord should have taken ownership of the issues and owned up to the mistakes that were made, which it did in its response two years later to the designated person.

 

96. The landlord said it now had an action plan. It would be instructing a structural engineering company in the next week or so to underpin the rear of the property. This will stabilise the foundations and it will then make good any internal and external cracking and associated decorating works. It was ascertaining the availability of a specialist. Once this is established the works are expected to take approximately one month. Given everything that had happened up to this point, and some of which was only revealed in the landlord’s response to the designated person, it was irresponsible for the landlord to have given this response. The landlord should have waited until the structural engineer had given its assessment and timelines before giving any indication to the resident as to how long the repairs would take, bearing in mind this was a property that it felt was at risk of collapsing. This response only served to give the resident false expectations that would make her disappointment more acute when it did not materialise.

 

97. The landlord accepted that its communication should have been better and this was the right thing to do.

 

98. In response to the condition of the decant property (where the resident had now resided for nine months) the landlord stated that the resident was moved at short notice. However, in the resident’s first complaint of October 2015 she mentioned that there had been discussions about a decant property for over four weeks ago). Whilst it is accepted that the resident moved at short notice, this is because of the landlord’s failings in appreciating the severity of the structural defects and that the property was becoming dangerous. This is the event that led to the move a short notice. The landlord accepted that the decant property was not tailored to the resident’s specific medical needs, but did not cite its failure to follow its decant policy which required medical evidence and that it source a property that is or can be reasonably adapted. The landlord also failed to then implement its policy as part of its complaint response. There is no evidence that a medical practitioner determined that a grab rail was sufficient substitution for a wet room.

 

99. The landlord accepted that they should have provided and installed blinds themselves. The resident purchased blinds four months into her occupation of the decant property and four months later the landlord had not installed it and the resident was not allowed to do so. Proposals were made to address this.

 

100. The complaint response did not give details of how the resident could escalate her complaint and engage with the Ombudsman. No compensation was offered to put things right for the failings.

 

101. This complaint should have been dealt with at Stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure as the resident mentioned a first complaint that was not responded to and referred to this as her second complaint.

 

 

102. The resident’s third complaint was made on 26 September 2016. The complaints procedure required an acknowledgement in two working days and a response in 10 working days. This did not happen. The complaint procedure requires that the landlord:

• take ownership of issues and say sorry if we have made a mistake.

• customers feel respected and are taken seriously.

• are attentive and empathetic.

• investigate fully all of the issues raised.

• problems are resolved quickly.

• learn from our mistakes.

 

With no acknowledgement and response the landlord failed to do all of the above.

 

103. What was alarming was that this had happened in October 2015 and furthermore in the complaint response of July 2016 the landlord accepted that there were failings in its communication. This evidenced a failure to learn from its mistakes.

 

104. The resident was left without an explanation as to why the works, she was led to believe would be completed by mid-August 2016, had not been completed and when she could expect it to be done. The resident remained without any indication when she would move from her decant property.

 

105. The resident, via her representative, made her fourth complaint on 11 February 2018. The resident complained about the handling of the issue of subsidence, extensive works outstanding at her permanent home upon her return, promises of items that were not fulfilled, level of compensation and communication.

 

106. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 February 2018 and responded on 27 February 2018. The response should have been provided by 23 February 2018.

 

107. The landlord failed to take ownership of the issues that were raised. At the point of acknowledgement the landlord invoked a rule in their complaints policy that states “We will not treat the following as a complaint… A complaint which has already been responded to and closed”.

 

108. Firstly the extract given by the landlord was not the full extent of the policy as it failed to mention “…without new evidence or information”. In any event the landlord proceeded to address the complaint on the basis of issues that had arisen after the original complaint and therefore again missed an opportunity to address earlier failings, put things right and learn from previous mistakes.

 

109.  Secondly, the landlord failed to give proper consideration to the application of the rule. The complaint was made on Sunday 11 February 2018 and by Wednesday 14 February 2018 the landlord invoked the rule. Given the lengthy history of the case (from August 2015), the complexity of multiple issues involved (subsidence to the permanent home, decant property, communication, level of compensation) and that the underlying issue was ongoing the landlord should have carried out a thorough investigation and given proper consideration as to whether that rule should have been applied in this instance. The fact that the rule was invoked during its acknowledgement meant that was not the case.

 

110. Thirdly, the fact that there were two earlier complaints (the first complaint October 2015 and the most recent complaint September 2016) that were never acknowledged or responded to meant that they were never closed and so the conditions for the application of this rule was not met and it should not have been invoked.

 

111. By invoking this rule the landlord deprived itself of the opportunity to fully examine the history of the case, identify and address its past and continued failings, put things right and learn from outcomes.

 

112. The landlord’s response to complaints about poor communication and repair delays were explained to arise from the fundamental restructuring of the property services department and unforeseen staff recruitment issues. This deviated substantially from the response given for the delays in its earlier complaint response which covered the same issues. The landlord did not reconcile the discrepancy.

 

113. In regard to the outstanding works upon the resident’s return to her permanent home the landlord’s description, as minor snagging works, trivialised the problems the resident experienced and was not empathetic. The landlord also stated that it was due to it accommodating an early return to the property for the resident that these issues were encountered. This is very insensitive and unempathetic. Given the resident was decanted for two years there was no early return. This did not meet the expectations of the policy to make the resident feel respected and taken seriously. To rectify the issues upon the resident’s return the landlord had to drain the water tank and rework the plumbing; realign kitchen units; clear the back garden of builder’s waste; replace aerial and power sockets; change a boiler and a back door.

 

 

114. The complaint response to two very senior members of staff reneging on promises, to provide a ‘lean to’ and then a conservatory, made to the resident was simply to say that they should not have done so and apologise but sufficient contrition was not expressed. With regard to the resident’s choice of kitchen tiles that was expressly agreed not been fitted the landlord said it was an oversight, referred to its limited budget, said they could not agree to everything and that it achieved a balance approach. However, the landlord had clearly given her a choice and therefore an expectation and had not told her that it was subject to these conditions it now brought up.

 

115. In respect of the compensation offered the landlord failed to apply their compensation policy throughout the history of this matter and this is addressed below.

 

116. The resident’s fourth complaint proceeded to Stage two (Review). The purpose of the review is to:

 

1. Review the handling of the complaint at the investigation stage.
2. Confirm whether the landlord’s policies and procedures have been followed.
3. Clarify if it was reasonable to apply the current policies and procedures in this instance.
4. Identify any factors that may not have been taken into account when making original or subsequent decisions in relation to the complaint.
5. Check factual information that was taken into account in earlier decisions about action taken.
6. Decide whether to offer any further redress for any unfair treatment received or compensation for loss incurred.
7. Reach a conclusion that the panel are satisfied with as the final stage of its internal complaints process.

 

117. The landlord failed to properly review the handling of the complaint at stage one. The landlord did not address the rule that was invoked at stage one to not look at earlier complaints that were responded to and closed. By failing to do so the landlord comprised the integrity of the review; did not confirm whether the landlord policies and procedures have been followed; and clarify whether it was reasonable to apply the current policies and procedures in this instance. The landlord also compounded the feelings of injustice experienced by the resident. The October 2015 and September 2016 complaints remained unanswered and the deficiencies in the July 2016 complaint response were not addressed.

 

 

118. The landlord’s response to the outstanding works at the property on the resident’s return was a more in-depth version of the stage one response thereby compounding the failures, such as the description of matters as snagging issues when they went far beyond this; the insensitivity of stating that they were seeking to accommodate an early return to the property for the resident without acknowledgement of and sufficient contrition for its delays that meant she was decanted for two years.

 

119. In relation to the kitchen the landlord advised the resident to let them know if certain works had not yet been completed and they will ensure the work is arranged. This is an inadequate response at stage two. The landlord should fully know whether something has been repaired and not leave it to the resident to bring it to its attention, if that were not the case.

 

120. The landlord advised the resident that the property was perfectly safe following the completion of the subsidence works to stabilise it. This was not the case and the landlord failed to carry out a proper review of the post works checks before making such a statement. By the date of this stage two review new cracks were being reported and later surveys demonstrates this assurance was misplaced.

 

121. In response to the wrong colour kitchen titles been fitted the landlord’s response was insensitive and did not show sufficient contrition given the overall circumstances of the subsidence. However, the landlord accepted that the issue with the backdoor not closing securely was unacceptable.

 

122. In response to the level of compensation the landlord did not address whether or not their compensation policy and procedure had been applied at stage one or whether the facts being relied on were accurate. The issue with the compensation is addressed further below.

 

123. The review stage of the complaint failed to adhere to the landlord’s procedure for review. To conclude the review the landlord stated that “Whilst I agree that the response is not as thorough as I would hope, the foundation of the response remains the same…” However, this is a contradiction as a more thorough response, could have revealed the failings that would have challenged the foundation of the earlier response.

 

124. The resident then engaged a designated person to progress her fifth complaint. The landlord’s response to the designated person was more candid than it had ever been in admitting the errors it made. The landlord expressed that elementary errors were made; the team struggled to manage the project; the project should have been handled by another team; there was significant internal restructuring; staff involved in the project had left; and they could have done better.

 

125. On 19 June 2020 the landlord sent a letter to the resident which they referred to as a joint investigation handled as a formal complaint. This would amount to the sixth complaint. The landlord offered the resident an additional sum of £2,000 for her impending permanent move. The landlord again did not make use of this opportunity to properly apply the compensation policy.

 

126. The resident then complained to the Housing Ombudsman on 26 September 2020. In communication between the landlord and the resident on 22 March 2021, the landlord accepted that they had not progressed specifically the resident’s dissatisfaction with the level of compensation and would respond to it through their formal complaint process.

 

127. The landlord issued their final complaint response on 1 April 2021. The landlord accepted that this matter was ongoing for a number of years. In reviewing the history of the matter the landlord only referred to the complaints in June 2016 and February and March 2018. No reference was made to the October 2015 or the September 2016 complaints.

 

128. The landlord again invoked the rule that they would not treat as a complaint, a complaint which has or is similar to one that has already been responded to and closed without new evidence or information. The landlord would also not normally consider complaints that relate to things that happened more than six months ago. However, as previously set out the landlord had yet to respond to the 2015 and 2016 (September) complaint. The landlord again made errors in their complaints response when addressing the issue of compensation by failing to properly review whether its compensation policy was correctly applied.

 

129. The resident made at least six complaints spanning six years (October 2015 to April 2021). Two complaints were never responded to and those to which responses were received failed to adhere to the complaints policy and procedure. The Ombudsman finds that there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and the landlord ought to pay the resident £1,500.

Level of Compensation offered

130. The resident has complained to the landlord for a considerable period of time and on multiple occasions about the level of compensation she has been awarded.

 

131. The Ombudsman’s powers to make orders which include financial compensation can be found in Schedule 2 Housing Act 1996 and paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The aim of the Ombudsman’s Remedies Policy is to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

 

132. In determining the level of compensation the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s own compensation policies and this approach has been taken.

 

133. The Ombudsman has identified that under the landlord’s policies the resident ought to be compensated under the following headings:

 

1. The loss the resident suffered is due to a failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs (dealt with above).
2. Service failure causes distress.
3. Resident has to spend excessive time and trouble achieving a solution to a problem or complaint.
4. Disturbance payments.
5. Complaint handling (dealt with above).

 

134. The landlord has made multiple errors in applying its compensation policy which has impacted the amount offered to the resident. It is not clear when the landlord first made an offer of compensation to the resident. It is noted that no offer of compensation was made in the complaint response of 12 July 2016.

 

135. In the resident’s complaint of 11 February 2018 it was mentioned that the “Goodwill gesture was derisory”.

 

136. In the complaint response dated 27 February 2018 the landlord said it had reflected on the amount of goodwill offer and believe £4,000 to be a fair amount for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family. All costs that the resident had incurred have also been met in full.

 

137. In explaining the reason for this sum the landlord said:

 

1. We are a registered social landlord committed to providing good quality housing for those in need.
2. Any profit that is made is reinvested back into the company and is used to provide more housing as well as improving the standards of the home we already own.
3. It is important that we spend our money in an efficient, responsible and appropriate way.

 

138. Upon a stage two review the landlord stated that they are aware that all out of pocket expenses have been paid for and this payment is in relation to distress and inconvenience that may have been caused and includes recognition that we have not handled the situation as well as we should have. We agreed this amount to be generous and will therefore not be recommending that this amount be increased.

 

139. In its response to the designated person dated 2 July 2018 the landlord said:

 

“I think it would be helpful to explain the panel’s thinking in relation to the award proposed for compensation. Homeloss and Disturbance payments are statutory payments and are well defined and set out and there are some important principles to appreciate.

 

Loss of home – [the resident]  did not lose her home so was not entitled to a ‘Homeloss’ payment. This is only paid when a customer has to make a permanent move to another property, not a temporary decant like this.

 

Disturbance payments – these are made for both permanent and temporary home loss. They cover all the expenses associated with a home move, so removal costs, carpets and curtains, decorating and cooker connections for example. The principle being that customers should not be left ‘out of pocket’ as a result of them having to move out of their home.. 

 

Compensation – beyond the actual expenses described above, it is not practice to compensate the customer for having to move on a temporary basis. A home owner who had to move out of their home for subsidence or damp work would have their expenses covered by their insurance company but would not be ‘compensated’ for having to do so.

 

We therefore agreed that [the resident] was entitled to compensation for the unnecessary distress and inconvenience beyond that which you would reasonably expect when having to decant your home.

 

We have to balance being fair, particularly in recognising our failings in this case, but also be mindful of the fact we are a charitable organisation. [The representative]  references our annual surplus, however that surplus is required to meet our funding obligations and to ensure we can continue to deliver more affordable homes. In these cases we review our own case files as well as reviewing case studies on the Housing Ombudsman Website.

 

At Stage 2 we considered the claim and again, accepting it had been handled poorly, felt that the proposed offer of compensation at Stage 1 of £4,000 was generous for the claim being considered. There was a discussion about reducing the amount of compensation, however we felt that naturally this would not be well received so agreed to abide by the original offer. It is worth noting that the Housing Ombudsman has, on occasion, reduced the amount of the compensation being offered when making a judgement.

 

140. In a letter to the resident dated 19 June 2020 the landlord stated under the heading financial offer:- We will:

 

• pay for carpets and flooring for a property you move to including the cost of laying them up to the value of £200 per room.
• arrange for the property to be decorated using a colour scheme of your choice up to the value of £100 per room (for the purposes of this and flooring a separate bathroom and WC are classed as one room).
• adapt your bathroom making it suitable for you taking into account your disabilities.
• make an additional disturbance payment to you of £2,000.

 

141. The landlord has confirmed it covered the expenses of carpets, flooring and decoration as part of its compensation offer to the resident in the permanent decant property. These are costs that would normally be covered by the resident but the landlord paid this which amounted to £7,094.34. This was reasonable and also meant it saved the resident time in arranging and paying this herself.

 

142. In the landlord’s final complaint response dated 1 April 2021 it said “I am aware that all of your out of pocket expenses were reimbursed and you were compensated £4000 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused to you and your family.”

 

143. Under the heading “Disturbance” the letter said “A total of £3000 was offered to reflect the impact the most recent occasion of moving had on you and your family. I understand the cost of the works, together with the money we offered for floor coverings, decoration [re: decant property] and disturbance came to a total of £15,600.” “Following my investigation, I am satisfied the total amount of compensation offered, £7000, is fair for the disruption and inconvenience you and your family have experienced. We have paid all the associated costs of moving between properties on all occasions, as well as reimbursing you for any out of pocket expenses incurred. In addition, we agreed to undertake the additional work detailed above to [new decant property] which in itself was in excess of £10,000, and above our re-let standard”.

 

144. There is a lack of clarity what the total sum of £7,000 that the landlord offered the resident was for. It has been referred to as goodwill gesture, goodwill offer for stress and inconvenience, compensation for unnecessary distress and inconvenience beyond what would be expected for decant, disturbance payment and payment for stress and inconvenience, at different stages. All these terms are well defined under the landlord’s compensation policy but appears to have been used interchangeably in determining the compensation the resident should receive.

 

145. Without knowing what the sum of £7,000 is for, under the landlord’s compensation policy, it has not been possible to apply it to any particular heading and make adjustments. In order to avoid double compensating the resident we have assessed what the overall compensation ought to have been and deducted this sum.

 

146. There are several well defined non-exclusiveheadings (i.e. an award under one does not preclude an award under another) under which the resident is entitled to compensation. At no time did the landlord determine all the compensation heads that applied to the resident and how much the resident should be awarded under each.The issues that affected the resident were complex and multifaceted. To properly compensate for them required careful examination of the elements of compensation under the respective headings. The landlord’s approach to start with a global sum and refer to it using different compensation headings interchangeably, evidence an approach that was not thorough.

 

147. In addition to failing to consider the heads of compensation that apply and the sum to be awarded under each head, the landlord introduced multiple considerations which did not form part of the compensation policy and they collectively had the effect of reducing the amount of and denying the resident the compensation she sought.

 

148. At times in determining the level of compensation the landlord considered matters such as:

 

1. whether the subsidence was caused by negligence.
2. the costs of works to bring the permanent decant property up to a suitable standard (when it was the landlord who offered a property in a state that failed to meet its void standards, therefore necessitating the upgrade) and referred to it as a Goodwill Gesture.
3. the landlord’s status as a registered social landlord and how they use their profit.
4. what a home insurance policy would compensate for.
5. the current financial climate.
6. other irrelevant matters.

 

149. A further factor that has clearly impacted the amount of compensation is the landlord’s errors in grasping the facts of the case. The landlord:

 

1. Was ignorant of the two complaints made (October 2015 and September 2016) that was never acknowledged or responded to.
2. claimed that the subsidence returned in late 2019 when it in fact returned immediately upon the resident’s return to her home in October 2017 and which it confirmed was being monitored by May 2018 and commissioned surveys for it in December 2018.
3. Failed to consider the non-tangible yet aggravating factors that impacted the resident, such as her disability.

 

150. The Ombudsman has considered each heading that applies to the resident and what sums she should receive to be fair and to put things right. The physical loss suffered due to having a property in a state of disrepair and the insufficient facilities with the decant property have been addressed above. Complaint handling has also been considered above. Several other headings for compensation are considered below.

Disturbance Payments 

151. The landlord defines Disturbance Payments as a payment made to a tenant who is required to move to another property temporarily or does not qualify for a Home Loss payment and is required to move permanently. The payment is to cover reasonable costs related to the move.

 

152. The resident moved from:

1. her permanent home to a hotel in October 2015.
2. the hotel to the decant property in November 2015.
3. the decant property to her permanent property in October 2017.
4. her permanent property to her new permanent home in November 2020.

 

153. The landlord has confirmed that all direct costs related to the moves have been paid and the resident has not challenged this. No further award is made under this heading.

Home Loss payment

154. The landlord has a Home Loss, Decant and Disturbance Policy that sets out the approach it will take when customers need to be moved from their homes to enable major works to take place or if it plan to re-model, demolish or dispose of the property.

 

155. The policy states that in some circumstances it may be necessary to consider disposal of a property, an example of this is when there are excessive repair costs. The policy states it will offer customers a management move and compensation which includes a disturbance payment equivalent to the statutory payment it were redeveloping the property at the time. An example was given of £6500 from 1 Oct 2020.

 

156. On or around 5 April 2022 the property was sold at auction (lot 41) by Savills. The property has therefore been disposed of in accordance with the policy which offers a Home Loss payment as if the property was redeveloped.

 

157. The landlord is not required to pay the resident a Home Loss payment of £6,500 as the decision to sell was made after the resident was permanently decanted after requesting a management transfer In November 2020.

 

 

The Resident suffered distress because of service failures

158. Under the landlord’s Discretionary Compensation policy a resident may be compensated where they have suffered distress because of service failures. This is distinct to the physical, material and tangible loss suffered from not having a property in a satisfactory state of repair or a suitable decant property as addressed above. It is clear that the resident suffered distress.

 

159. The other consideration is whether the distress the resident suffered was because of service failures. There were several service failures which included:
     1. failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs.    
     2. failure to deal with complaints in accordance with the Complaint Policy.
     3. poor customer service ( promises made which were not kept).
     4. and failure to deal with compensation in accordance with its Compensation Policy.

 

160. The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies state that distress can include:
     1. stress, anxiety, worry, frustration, and uncertainty.   
     2. raised expectations – where a landlord’s actions or inactions resulted in a resident reasonably believing that something would, or would not, happen.
     3. Inconvenience.        
     4. a strong sense of having been treated differently to others for no apparent reason.
     5. problems caused by delays in a landlord resolving matters or poor complaint handling.

 

161. When assessing the impact of the distress the Ombudsman takes into account:
     1. the severity of the situation.     
     2. the length of time involved.      
     3. any disabilities or particular vulnerabilities of the resident. 
     4. any other relevant factors.

 

162. The amount of compensation the Ombudsman decides upon does not reflect a definitive loss, as we are not able to quantify this, but it is a recognition of the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the particular circumstances of the complaint.

 

163. The resident experienced distress because of the length of the landlord’s failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs from August 2015 to 5 November 2020 (a period of 5 years and 3 months).

 

164. The resident’s distress began when the landlord failed to correctly diagnose the cause of the multiple cracks to the property. The resident made phone calls and sent emails to several members of the landlord’s staff expressing her concerns. The resident said she was becoming increasingly frustrated and indicated that she would pay independently for a surveyor as her concerns for the property was increasing daily.

 

165. Further distress was caused to the resident when on 23 October 2015 at 2.30pm the landlord contacted the resident at work and gave her a few hours to collect her essential belongings, her daughter and her pets and leave the property. In her complaint on 25 October 2015, the resident stated that she was in extreme pain, stressed, exhausted and very upset. The resident stated that she was disgusted at the way she was treated by the landlord and have been kept in the dark.

 

166. Around 6 November 2015 the resident was placed in a decant property where she immediately encountered problems. The resident complained that the decant property was detrimental to her health and wellbeing. The facilities in the property failed to account for her disability.

 

167. The resident was further distressed due to no timescale as to when she would return to her property. In her complaint on 19 June 2016 the resident threatened to go to the media about her experiences and expressed disgust.

 

168. In response to the resident’s complaint, on 13 July 2016 the landlord informed her that a specialist contractor would be instructed within a week and the work would take a month giving her the reasonable belief she would return to her property mid August 2016. The resident did not return to her permanent home as anticipated. This resulted in a further complaint on 26 September 2016. The resident expressed feelings of disappointment and resignation; requested that she be taken seriously and treated with respect; felt that she was been fobbed off with excuses.

 

169. The resident experienced distress when she returned to the property and found there was a significant amount of work that remained outstanding after two years. The distress experienced by the resident was overwhelming and she got a representative to complain on her behalf in February 2018 (Stage 1) and March 2018 (Stage 2) and seek the help of a designated person to whom the landlord responded in July 2018. The resident felt that she was treated with contempt.

 

170. Further distress was caused when the resident had to report in May 2018 that the property continued to suffer from subsidence and had not been properly repaired.

 

171. The resident continued to live in a property that was cracking and moving until 5 November 2020. The resident was notified in June 2020 that the property would be monitored and it could be the case that she might have to be moved urgently again.

 

172. The resident suffered additional distress due to the landlord’s failure to adhere to its complaints policy. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s first complaint of 25 October 2015. The complaint included expressions of her distress which went unanswered. When the resident complained again in June 2016 the landlord failed to adhere to its complaint’s policy as the investigation was inadequate and the response was not candid. The resident mentioned how her first complaint in October 2015 was disregarded and yet there was no mention of it in the landlord’s response.

 

173. Further distress occurred when the resident complained again in September 2016 and received no response.

 

174. Complaints were made in 2018 which the landlord failed to fully investigate by invoking the rule that they would not look at issues which were raised in previous complaints which was now closed. The application of this rule was not properly considered given all the circumstances of the case, was insensitive given two earlier complaints had not been responded to and caused distress.

 

175. The landlord’s failure to provide adequate customer service caused the resident additional distress. Throughout most of the period of disrepair the landlord accepted and apologised for poor communication. The resident on many occasions was left with unanswered questions and not knowing what was happening and when she would return to her property. This resulted in two christmas, two new years, four birthdays and other family events spent in uncertainty in the decant property.

 

176. The landlord made several promises/statements to the resident which were not kept therefore resulting in raised expectations and additional distress when let down, which would not have happened, if they were not made.

 

177. The resident was promised a “lean-to” by a very senior member of staff. The landlord stated that it was made with good intentions and in hindsight should not have been made and apologised that it had raised the resident’s expectations.

 

178. Another manager then raised the resident’s hopes that she would be given a conservatory. The landlord said again in hindsight this offer should never have been made. The landlord went on to state it was not a definite offer, only that it was a possibility subject to costs.This was not made clear to the resident at the time of its purported offer and created avoidable distress when it was retracted.

 

179. The landlord agreed a specific coloured tile for the kitchen and installed something different. The landlord’s response was that it was an oversight, they had to be mindful of their budget and they tried to have a balanced approach. The landlord stated that it was functional. This again was an avoidable event where the resident’s expectations were raised when the offer was purportedly agreed, and an additional distress caused when it was retracted. A more frank and clear communication by the landlord could have avoided this.

 

180. The landlord’s failure to adhere to their compensation policy has caused the resident additional distress. The resident has challenged the level of compensation she has been awarded, or lack of it, from 2015 to her approach to the Ombudsman and the landlord’s final determination in April 2021. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that it had not dealt satisfactorily with the resident’s dissatisfaction with the level of compensation.

 

181. In the Ombudsman’s communication with the resident about the impact this matter had on her health and wellbeing she informed us that for five and half years her home and life had been completely disrupted. She informed us she suffered from depression; increased anxiety (with her daughter receiving counselling); increased and prolonged illness as a result of her disability being exasperated; upset, crying; distressed; anger; stress; emotional rollercoaster; physical and mental exhaustion; and felt being grinded down.

 

182. The landlord ought to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £500 per year for the period of 5 years. The total sum for distress is £2,500.

Customers have to spend excessive time and trouble achieving a solution to a problem or complaint

183. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for the resident to be compensated where they have had to spend excessive time and trouble achieving a solution.

 

184. The Ombudsman recognises that any resident pursuing a complaint with their landlord will incur a certain amount of time, trouble and minor costs (such as phone calls). The Ombudsman would not usually order a landlord to compensate residents for their time and trouble in making a complaint in these circumstances.

 

185. However, a remedy of financial compensation may be appropriate if the Ombudsman finds that the time and trouble incurred by the resident in seeking to resolve their complaint was significantly more than would be reasonably expected due to a landlord’s poor complaint handling. For example, we may find that a landlord had unreasonably failed to progress or escalate a complaint on repeated occasions, failed to respond to reasonable contacts from the resident or demonstrated overall poor complaint handling. We consider the overall and cumulative adverse effect on the resident, and we may make a remedy that recognises the impact on the resident of the time and trouble they have incurred in pursuing their complaint.

 

186. The resident has had to spend excessive time and trouble, over a prolonged period, going beyond what is reasonable in all the circumstances, to achieve:

 

1. a property that is in a satisfactory state of repair.
2. to receive an adequate level of compensation.

 

187. This heading of financial award is distinct from the physical, material and tangible loss the resident suffered as a result of not having a property in a satisfactory state of repair and distinct to the distress (mental anguish) that the resident suffered as a result of service failures.

 

188. This heading encapsulates the phone calls, letters, emails, complaints times six, engaging two separate MPs to pursue her issues, engaging with local Councillors, engaging with repair personnels/contractors, searching for suitable alternative accommodation, visits to the property to do her own inventory, moving to a hotel, moving from the hotel to decant property, arranging storage of her belongings, arranging disconnections and connections of utilities (gas, water, electricity), mail collection/redirection, amending insurance and more.

 

189. This was exacerbated by very poor communication with a team who were not adept to deal with the repairs. This occurred over a period of five years.

 

190. Under the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy the resident should simply report a disrepair and provide access (including vacant possession) for the landlord to conduct inspections and carry out works. That is the extent of the resident’s obligation.

 

191. The resident spent excessive time and trouble from August 2015 to 1 April 2021 and she ought to be awarded £500 per year over a period of five years and seven months amounting to £2,791.

Determination (decision)

192.      In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:

1. response to the resident’s reports of subsidence at her property.
2. complaint handling.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its level of compensation awarded to the resident.

Reasons

193. The landlord failed to apply its responsive repairs policy and procedures effectively, resulting in unreasonable delays in; determining the nature of the disrepair, taking action to effect repairs and ensuring the repairs were carried out to a suitable standard. The disrepair lasted several years, were never really completed and had a severe detrimental impact upon the resident and her household.

 

194. The landlord failed to apply its complaint policy and procedure and in so doing did not acknowledge or respond to two complaints and when the landlord did respond to complaints they were not investigated or reviewed properly and the response fell below the required standard set out in its policy. This had a detrimental effect on the resident as there were numerous complaints and therefore numerous missed opportunities to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

 

195. The landlord failed to apply its compensation policy in determining the level of compensation to be awarded to the resident for its service failures. The landlord failed to consider relevant matters and actively considered matters that were not relevant nor a part of its compensation policy. The landlord used well defined terms under the compensation policy interchangeably without regard to their appropriate meaning and in doing so significantly undermined the compensation the resident was entitled to. The landlord did not sufficiently examine and make itself aware of all the factors that would influence an award of compensation.

Orders

196. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £13,657, comprised of:
     1. £4,750 for the loss the resident suffered due to a failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs.
     2. £2,500 for the distress suffered because of service failures.
     3. £2,791 for the time and trouble the resident undertook in achieving a solution to a problem or complaint.
     4. £2116 for the provision of a hotel room instead of a decant property and the provision of decant property that failed to provide adequate facilities for the resident.
     5. £1,500 for the failure to apply its Complaints policy and procedures.

From this sum the earlier payment of £7,000 will be deducted leaving the remaining sum of £6,657 to be paid to the resident. The landlord can also deduct the costs of carpets, flooring and decoration covered in the transfer property, which it has confirmed totalled over £7,000 therefore no further compensation is due.

6. Issue an apology from senior management.

The landlord is ordered within 12 weeks of the date of this determination to:

7. provide training to its staff on the proper implementation of its complaints policy.
8. provide training to its staff on the proper implementation of its compensation policy.
9. carry out a case review and present its governing body with the findings. This should include identifying any additional lessons on handling repairs, the handling of decants where a resident has disabilities, and its approach to compensation.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timeframes noted.