Homes Plus Limited (202123949)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123949

The Housing Plus Group Limited

15 June 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s standard of workmanship and handling of repairs to the driveway, ground around the property, garden, and rear doors.
2. The landlord’s complaint management and level of compensation offered.
This report also looks at the landlord’s information management and record keeping practices.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case and reach a view as to whether a complaint will or will not be investigated.
Paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal process for considering complaints”. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 September 2021.
This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that goes beyond its final stage 2 complaint response, and therefore beyond the scope of this investigation.
It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs it is noted.

Background

The resident lives in a two-storey semi-detached house let under an assured tenancy by South Staffordshire Housing Association Ltd, in May 2011.
The resident first complained about subsidence and subsidence related issues to the current landlord, Housing Plus Housing Association in March 2021.
The development team completed a ground review, land survey and mining searches on the site prior to the property being built 10 years before the resident complaint was made.

Relevant policies and procedures

In the tenancy agreement the association agrees:
1. “to keep the structure and exterior of the premises in good repair including drains, outside walls, windowsills, doors and door frames, jambs, thresholds, fences, pathways, steps, ramps.”
2. “to carry out all repairs for which the landlord is responsible within such reasonable timescales as may be determined by the association.”
In the tenancy agreement the tenant agrees:
1. “To report the association promptly any disrepair or defect which you are aware of and which it is the association responsible to repair.”
2. [To be] responsible for all parts of the garden including grass, trees, bushes, hedges, shrubs fences and fencing.”
The landlord’s group complaint policy the states:
1. Complaint and escalation requests will be logged and acknowledged in writing within two working days of receipt.
2. A written response will be sent within ten working days of receipt of stage 1 complaints and 20 working days of receipt of an escalation request.
3. “If it is anticipated that there will be a delay in providing a written response, a holding letter will be sent advising of a new response date.”
The landlord’s compensation policy states:
1. “Housing Plus Group may consider a discretionary payment of compensation…if repair or improvement work undertaken by Housing Plus Group has not met our published standards and this has caused the customer significant inconvenience or disruption.”
2. “The most likely circumstances in which a compensation payment may be made are…inconvenience/distress caused due to an unacceptable delay in resolving a reported repair or other service area problem where Housing Plus is at fault and/or where a service standard has not been met.”
In the landlord’s repairs policy it states:
1. Landlord responsibilities include “the structure and elements of the exterior.”
2. When an inspection is required, an appointment will be offered to investigate further. For communal area responsive repairs and external works where no access is required, appointments will not be made.
3. If a repair is classified by the association as a major repair, it will be completed within 60 days after completion of an inspection.

Summary of events

The resident reported property repair needs to the landlord via a telephone call in March 2021. In the evidence summary they provided to this Service the resident listed the repairs as:
1. “subsidence around the property”
2. “a drop in the rear garden highlighted by the rear fence post dropping around two foot and exposed manhole covers (to the front side and rear of the property)”
3. “kerbs causing trip hazards.”
4. “movement in the driveway”
5. “continuous issues regarding opening and closing the rear doors.”
The landlord asked the resident to provide photographs of the issues requiring repair, which they did on 15 March 2021.
The landlord raised two works orders on 19 March 2021 to repair the upvc patio door and a damaged gate. Its contractor conducted patio door repair works on 30 March 2021. The contractor agreed to “request a new threshold on the door as it had bowed which was causing the problem.” The contractor also agreed to “order a new rear gate as it was rotten and there was nothing [the contractor] could do.”
The resident resent the photographs to the landlord on 2 April 2021 because the landlord said it could not locate those sent previously. On 13 April 2021, the landlord informed the resident the photos were forwarded internally, and a response would be issued in 5 days. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 April 2021 because they did not receive a response from the landlord. On 28 April 2021, the landlord advised it could not find a response to the photographs they previously forwarded and would forward them again.
This Service has seen no evidence of any further contact between the landlord and the resident until 12 May when the resident “chased up” the repairs. The landlord subsequently inspected the property on the 21 May 2021, but it is not clear to this Service what was inspected. The landlord attended the property again on 25 May 2021 to repair the patio doors but was unable to because they identified further works were required to ensure the doors would close in warmer weather.
On 16 June 2021, the resident made a stage 1 complaint using the landlord’s online complaint form. The complaint requested a survey of the ground around the property and referred to:
1. the lack of response from the landlord in relation to the resident’s repair reports and the photos they provided.
2. subsidence:
  1. the landlord’s advice that it inspected the property when the back gate was locked.
  2. the landlord’s failure to provide the resident with a subsidence report following its inspection – which was expected – and the attending contractor left the organisation.
  3. ongoing concern about “the ground around the property, which is soft, falling away and could make the property unsafe over time.”
1. back doors
  1. the attending contractor did not have the materials needed and was unclear about the back door repair required.
  2. the back door repair completed did not last as the doors expand in warm weather conditions.
  3. the threshold repair was incomplete.
  4. concerns that the faulty back doors were fire doors.
2. back gate
  1. the resident did not receive a further response from the landlord about the installation of a new gate, following a contractor’s report that the gate was “rotten.”
The landlord visited the property on 22 June 2021 to speak to the resident about their stage 1 complaint and assess the works required. The landlord partially upheld the complaint in its stage one response, which it issued in line with its policy timeframe on 28 June 2021. In the stage one complaint response the landlord stated:
1. it reviewed job history data, contractor feedback, and the resident’s contact with the landlord about the repair works,
2. the repair works were not considered urgent and so, in response to Covid-19 guidelines, they were not prioritised,
3. it apologised for not communicating this to the resident and for not explaining when inspections would restart.
4. The landlord proposed it would complete additional repairs which it listed as:

(1) reset the brick pavers to the side and rear of the drive,

(2) relay the concrete kerb to prevent a drain cover trip hazard,

(3) remove the patio doors and reinstall a UPVC sill,

(4) resecure and/or level the rear fence.

The landlord stated:
1. Works would be completed as “a major repair in the next 60 days under works order 637110”.
2. Works to replace the gate will be completed in a works programme within 5 years.

The resident requested that their complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 22 July 2021. In their escalation email the resident stated:
1. the landlord missed an appointment on 28 June 2021 which resulted in the resident waiting at home unnecessarily,
2. the landlord should make a courtesy call informing of visits completed whilst in the area, so the resident knew a contractor attended. Further that they would like advance notice of appointments scheduled,
3. the back gate and patio door sill repairs were not completed following the landlord’s advice that orders would be placed on 30 March 2021,
4. they were frustrated that a plumber was sent to complete a repair without knowledge of the repair required and were told “something is being done and then nothing happens”,
5. there were multiple defects of the driveway, the surrounding area, and an issue of subsidence. Further, that the back fence had moved which was observed by the landlord. The resident also reported sinkage in the gardenand uncertainty if this will also be repaired with the back fence,
6. they were unsure if an inspector would visit the property again prior to any works being completed,
7. the complaint should remain open for 5 years if the repair isn’t completed until then.
The landlord contacted the resident by phone about their stage two escalation request on 26 July 2021. The landlord subsequently emailed the resident to identify a suitable appointment date to discuss the stage 2 escalation. The landlord advised this was because since 1 April 2021 escalation forms were no longer used and were replaced with a phone conversation. The resident confirmed an appointment could be held on 27 July 2021 to discuss the stage 2 escalation.
The landlord discussed the complaint escalation with the resident on 27 July 2021 and issued its stage 2 complaint acknowledgement on the same day stating its stage 2 response would be issued by 24 August 2021. The landlord made notes of the conversation it held with the resident that stated the complaint related to:
1. The rear gate which should have been replaced by 14 August 2021,
2. sink holes in the garden were not investigated as agreed,
3. no communication about the repairs matters reported,
4. back doors not closing properly,
5. the back garden, driveway and fence panels have not been assessed as agreed,
6. a repair appointment was missed which cost the resident time off work,
7. several problems with damage and movement around the property,
8. the landlord’s previous confirmation of movement in the ground, sinking driveway and sinking rear garden, but no reassurance provided that the property is safe and secure,
9. the rear garden has dropped 2 feet and manhole covers are held in place by cement,
10. when is a land survey going to be completed.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 4 August 2021 advising them to use a generic email address so that any contact made could be addressed if individual staff were absent. The landlord also confirmed that the gate repair was due for completion by 14 August 2021.
A contractor visited the property on 5 August 2021 to measure for a new gate and a new appointment was proposed for 16 August 2021. The resident emailed the landlord later the same day to request information about the outstanding patio door repairs. The landlord replied to the resident the next day confirming it would “find out and come back to you.” The landlord subsequently sent an internal email stating the works order shows “the repairs have been deleted” and to find out “what is happening with the repairs, who is completing the works and when they will be completed.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 August 2021 about the lack of a stage two response from the landlord. The landlord advised that a meeting with the heads of service was being held later the same day and the stage 2 response will be issued by 24 August 2021. The landlord also enquired if the gate was installed, as expected, before 14 August 2021. The resident replied to the email stating the gate was not installed due to the resident’s own absence but that the contactor was due to attend to the repair later the same week.
The landlord issued a holding response to the resident on 23 August 2021 advising that the stage 2 response would be delayed until 7 September 2021. The landlord explained the extension of time was required as further information was required from staff that were unavailable.
The landlord requested information internally on 31 August 2021 about the steps it had taken to reassure the resident that there was no subsidence affecting the property. The landlord’s email suggested this could be “documents, meeting notes, reports…because if it escalates to the Ombudsman they will ask for evidence and take the point of view that any surveys and tests were done at the time of the build which is over 10 years ago, and a lot can happen in that time”.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 September 2021. The stage 2 complaint response upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord advised:
1. it considered information from repair and call history, discussions with internal staff and with reference to the landlord’s repairs and compensation policies,
2. it took learning from the resident’s suggestion that if the repairs will be completed in 60 days, the complaint escalation response timeline of 28 days was not suitable. Further, that it amended the wording of its letters,
3. it found significant service failure in its communication about repairs and cited unreturned calls as an example,
4. though the organisation was responding to the pandemic which was a challenging time more should have been done to communicate with the resident more effectively and in a timely manner,
5. it takes failures to communicate effectively with customers seriously and is committed to improving systems and processes to reduce the chances of this occurring in the future and apologised for this,
6. it referred to sinkholes and confirmed it had reviewed ground, mining searches and a land survey,
7. it stated, based up advice obtained from the development team “any movement is related to natural ground movement due to the downward slope of the garden”. Further it stated, “There is no evidence of subsidence or movement to suggest sinkholes are likely to occur…your property is safe,
8. it identified service failure in its handling and deletion of the repairs under works order 637110,
9. it offered the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience the matter caused.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 September 2021 stating they remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response and the process it followed. In their response the resident:
1. stated learning had not taken place due to faults withing the organisation,
2. questioned why the works order was cancelled or deleted, who deleted it and why no one noticed this and why it wasn’t checked,
3. stated escalating to stage 2 of the complaint process did not achieve anything,
4. requested information about cracking pathway repairs, driveway, tree roots, a raised garden manhole cover (due to ground sinking around it), and the gate repair,
5. stated £100 compensation award was an insult,
6. requested information about the status of a specific works order as they remained unclear and listed the repairs as:
  1. the replacement of the rear gate and fittings,
  2. new rear double doors,
  3. the installation of a retaining wall behind the rear fence, with the fence and rear garden grounds being raised so the manhole cover does not protrude,
  4. the lifting and relevelling of the driveway; ensuring water drains effectively,
  5. the replacement of tarmac and pavers/kerbs.
7. the resident requested the neighbouring properties are notified of the works in advance to limit any disruption to them.
On 8 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord because the gate repair scheduled to take place that day was not completed. Instead, a contractor attended to measure the gate. The landlord advised the resident that a structural engineer was required to repair the gate. The landlord said it did not know why an alternative contractor attended.
The resident reported their complaint to this Service which was accepted as duly made on 28 January 2022. Evidence seen by this Service of activity that took place after the landlords stage 2 complaint response confirmed:
1. The gate at the property was fully replaced between 9 and 15 September 2021. A bolt was removed when the gate was installed on 9 September 2021 so it could no longer be locked. This resulted in the landlord competing a further final repair on 15 September 2021.
2. On 5 November 2021, the resident advised the landlord they would present their complaint to this Service because 8 weeks had passed since the landlords stage 2 response and the repairs remained incomplete.
3. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 16 November 2021 and held a conversation with them about the outstanding repairs. The landlord subsequently sent an internal email on 17 November 2021 summarising the outstanding repairs.
4. The resident phoned and emailed the landlord about the outstanding repairs 3 times in February 2022 because they did not receive any further contact from it since 16 November 2021.
5. The landlord commissioned an external contractor to produce a site inspection report on 22 March 2022. The report assessed each of the repairs reports the resident made and classified all but one repair as an amber rating. An amber classification meant.
  1. “further investigation or testing may be required. Some minor repairs and initial costs should be anticipated.”
6. The report recommended “the external face of the brickwork should be monitored for a period of 6 months”.
7. The report classified the resident’s concern about tree roots as a green rating and stated “normal planned maintenance is required. No disrepair or outlay required. Landscaping works to the rear garden are the tenant’s responsibility.”

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Services opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s standard of workmanship and handling of repairs to the driveway, ground around the property, garden, and rear doors.

The resident reported their concerns about property subsidence in March 2021. The resident also reported a dropped rear garden fence, exposed manhole covers, movement in the driveway, kerb repairs causing a trip hazard, a damaged side gate and faulty patio doors. The landlord responded to the resident’s patio door and gate repair reports by completing an inspection and repair on 30 March 2021. This was completed within the repairs policy timescale, but the landlord advised the resident it would raise additional works orders for the replacement of the “rotten gate” and a new threshold for the faulty patio doors.

The landlord did not replace the “rotten gate” until 15 September 2021, 6 months after the resident’s first report. The gate repair was completed shortly after the landlord’s stage 2 response which is outside of the jurisdiction of this report. However, the time taken to repair the gate was unreasonable and was outside of the landlord’s repair policy timescales. The delay also caused time and trouble to the resident in seeking a resolution to the repair.
The landlord measured the residents side gate twice in August and September 2021 and as an explanation for the delay stated it required a structural engineer. This Service has seen no evidence that the side gate was anything other than a day-to-day repair, therefore it is not clear why a structural engineer was required, or why measurements were required twice. This represents a failure.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and the repairs policy the landlord was obligated to complete repairs and assessments within a reasonable time. This Service has seen evidence that goes beyond the scope of this report that the landlords external consultant assessed the patio door in March 2022. This indicates the repair was outstanding a year later and this timeframe is unreasonable.
The landlord’s failure to complete a lasting repair to the patio doors caused the resident time and trouble in seeking a resolution to the repair and the inconvenience of draughts into their property which was likely to have increased energy costs during colder months.
The landlord did not respond to the residents’ reports of subsidence and external repairs to the garden fence, driveway, raised manhole covers, drains and kerbside trip hazards when they were reported in March 2021. The resident clearly named and explained their concerns about subsidence and provided photographs that supported their perception of subsidence. The landlord did not respond to the residents reports of subsidence or the photographs the resident provided, and this was a failure.
It is not within the remit of this service to assess the presence or likelihood of subsidence at the property, but it is within the remit of this investigation to consider the landlords response to the information it received. The landlord was expected to show empathy for the residents concern and take decisive action or provide advice and/or reassurance that the matter would be addressed. The landlord failed to do this which resulted in inconvenience and distress to the resident.
During May 2021, the landlord took photographs of the site. It also completed an unannounced property inspection which the resident subsequently raised as a concern. Under the terms of the repairs policy and under Covid-19 regulations the landlord was entitled to complete external inspections without an appointment. Therefore this Service does not consider this to be a failure.
This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord took any further action to address the repairs the resident reported, following its visit to the address in May 2021. This was not acceptable and resulted in the resident raising a stage 1 complaint on 16 June 2021. Complaint handling is addressed later in this report.
The landlord recognised and apologised for its repair handling delays in its stage 1 response and confirmed it would complete the repairs within 60 days, by 27 August 2021. The landlord was expected to uphold the commitments it made in its complaint response by remedying the faults the resident reported within the stated reasonable timescale. However, the landlord did not complete the repairs within the 60-day timescale, nor proactively update the resident about the further delays. This invalidated the integrity of the landlords complaint response and caused further inconvenience and distress to the resident.
The landlord was expected to communicate effectively with the resident about its handling of the repairs. The landlord failed to meet these obligations and in doing so failed to meet, nor manage the resident’s expectations. During this time, the resident was likely to have been significantly distressed about their perception that subsidence affected their home. Further the resident was inconvenienced by the landlord’s failure to remedy the repairs and trip hazard reported both of which had an unverified and therefore potential risk to the health and safety of residents.
The landlord apologised for its failure to complete the outstanding repairs again in its stage 2 complaint response dated 7 September 2021. The landlord explained this was due to the repairs being deleted from its IT database which was unacceptable. It is the view of this Service that the landlords decision to highlight its repair management failures to the resident transparently was good practise. However, it was provided unreasonably late and ‘after the event.’ The exact cause of the deletion of the repair records was not explained to the resident, and this remains unclear to the landlord and this service; an outcome that represents a failure.
The landlord eventually addressed the residents reports of subsidence in its stage 2 response, dated 7 September 2021, 5 months after the resident reported their concern. The advice the landlord provided followed an email conversation it held with this Service which explained this investigation would look at the steps the landlord took to address the residents perception of subsidence. It cannot be determined if the landlord would have provided the advice it did if attention were not drawn to it by this Service. Regardless, the time it took to respond to the residents concern was unreasonable and as a result caused distress to the resident while waiting for the matter to be addressed and this was a failure.
In its complaint response the landlord stated, “any movement is related to natural ground movement due to the downward slope of the garden”…”there is no evidence of subsidence or movement to suggest sinkholes are likely to occur”…”your property is safe”. The landlord explained that it reached this conclusion following “a review of ground, mining searches and a land survey.”
This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord relied on a recent inspection of the property and its surroundings when issuing its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord held internal email conversations on 31 August 2021, specifically seeking advice about the steps it had taken to reassure the resident about their subsidence concerns. The landlord subsequently confirmed its assessment was based on reports and searches that were completed 10 years previously when the property was built. The landlords reliance on assessments that were completed 10 years previously, when faced with the potential health and safety concerns reported by the resident was a failure.
The landlord was expected to assess and respond to the repairs, photographs, and the resident’s perception of subsidence robustly. Therefore, it is not clear why the landlord did not complete a recent assessment of the site, or commission an external contractor to complete an assessment prior to confirming the site was safe. The failure to provide an up-to-date assessment of the grounds extended the period of distress and uncertainty to the resident who remained living in their property with outstanding repairs and without confidence that subsidence was not present.
It is evident that the landlord commissioned an assessment of the site in March 2022, with particular reference to the outstanding repairs and the residents perception of subsidence. Although this activity is outside of the remit of this investigation it represents recognition by the landlord that the site – and the potential risk to health and safety it posed – warranted further investigation and monitoring nearly a year after it was first reported.
Taking into account the full extent of the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair reports and concern about property subsidence this Service finds maladministration with the landlord’s standard of workmanship and handling of repairs to the driveway, ground around the property, garden, and rear doors.

The landlord’s complaint management and level of compensation offered.

When identifying whether there has been failure in service the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaint and compensation procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
The landlord’s complaint policy sets out clear principles for handling formal complaints. Its complaint policy sets out values and seeks to deliver a complaint handling service that complies with the principles and expectations of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (‘the Code’).
The landlord’s complaint responses align with the complaint policy and principles of the Code in many ways including:
1. apologising to the resident and providing clear information about the evidence it assessed,
2. stating if the complaint was upheld, sharing learning, and advising how to escalate the complaint to this Service,
3. issuing a holding response when it identified it could not meet its stage 2 response target of 24 August 2021,
4. offering financial redress in recognition of the impact the service failure had on the resident.
The landlord failed to act in line with its complaint policy when:
1. it did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint dated 16 June 2021 in writing within two working days,
2. it did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint escalation dated 22 July 2021 in writing within two working days,
3. it did not respond to the resident’s complaint that a property inspection report was not provided as they expected,
4. it did not respond to the resident’s complaint that an operative attended to repair the doors without the required tools or understanding of the work required. Further that the doors were fire doors,
5. it visited the resident to discuss the stage 2 complaint escalation on 27 July 2021 but recorded this date as the date of the escalation, rather than the date the resident emailed their escalation request,
6. it stated it would respond to the complaint at stage 2 of the complaint procedure by 24 August 2021. This date was 3 working days past the 20-day policy timescale. This was because the date the landlord considered the stage 2 complaint made was assessed from the date the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident and not the date of their email,
7. it did not provide a reasonable explanation for the deleted repairs works order that impacted the day-to-day repair works,
8. it advised the resident it stopped using an online form for complaints in April 2021, yet the landlord made their stage 1 complaint online in June 2021, therefore indicating the form was available to the resident after April 2021,
9. it did not respond to the additional questions the resident emailed on 7 September 2021 in response to the landlord’s final complaint response, nor did it advise the resident again to raise their continued dissatisfaction with the Housing Ombudsman Service.
When looking at compensation as a remedy for dissatisfaction, this service first looks at the landlord’s own assessment of its service failure and the redress due. We then look at the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance (published on our website) to assess if the award is reasonable.
The landlord awarded £100 compensation for the inconvenience related to repair delays. It is not clear how the landlord calculated its compensation award, but by offering compensation the landlord recognised “repair or improvement work undertaken by Housing Plus Group has not met our published standards and this has caused the customer significant inconvenience or disruption”.
The landlord did not fully complete any of the repairs the resident reported prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint response on 7 September 2021. Nor did the landlord respond to the residents’ concerns about subsidence in a qualitative way. This was not acceptable and warrants financial compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience this caused. This Service therefore must decide whether the compensation the landlord offered was sufficient redress for the damage caused.
This Service considers that the landlords’ delay in completing the repairs caused time and trouble and inconvenience to the resident in pursuing a remedy, since they reported the matters in March 2021. This would have been greatly reduced if the repairs had not been deleted from the landlord’s database or were progressed within a reasonable time.
The landlords’ failure to respond to the residents’ perception that the property was affected by subsidence and would have caused them distress. Considering the landlord did not take any action to assess this perception other than to refer to assessments completed over 10 years previously was unreasonable.
Considering the time it took for the landlord to progress the repairs and its failure to provide robust reassurance, based on a recent assessment of the property grounds, the redress offered is low and an increased level of compensation is due in view of this.
This Service recognises the landlord issued complaint responses that analysed and presented information from different evidence sources. The landlord recognised its own failings in a transparent way and tried to put right what had gone wrong by offering financial redress. However, the level of redress was low, and the landlord did not complete the repairs the resident reported as it was expected to do prior to issuing its final complaint response and compensation award. The landlord did not consistently meet the principles of the complaint policy and complaint handling code as referenced in paragraph 56, points a – i. These failings would have had a significant impact on the resident, in terms of time, trouble, and distress and inconvenience over a significant period of time. This Service consequently finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and level of compensation offered.

The landlord’s information management and record keeping practices.

This Service would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts, decisions, actions, and repairs, in order that it manages, handles, shares and uses information and knowledge in an appropriate way. Keeping accurate records enables landlords to understand the condition of its housing stock and the status of its housing management practises at any given time thereby assisting it to carry out its landlord obligations. If there is disputed evidence and no clear audit trail, this Service may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The landlord recorded 2 repair works orders as “completed 30-3-21 R17 repair in time”. It is not clear to this Service why the landlord recorded the repairs as complete when the contractor identified additional follow-on works were required. This was a record keeping failure.
The side gate repair was completed following two appointments for a contractor to measure the gate on 4 August 2021 and 8 September 2021. It is unclear why it was necessary for the landlord to complete a further measurement of the gate if the information was obtained previously. The landlord was expected to store the gate measurements so that it could refer to them at a later date.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord completed follow-on works to replace the threshold of the patio doors following its initial repair on 30 March 2021. This Service has seen evidence that the patio door repair works order was among those deleted from the landlord’s repairs system and therefore not completed. This represents a record keeping failure.
The landlord advised the tenant that it had deleted a repairs order from its database in its complaint responses. However, it did not sufficiently explain how the works orders came to be deleted, nor did it appear to identify the cause of the repair deletion itself and this was expected.
The resident emailed the landlord photographs of the property – which they stated evidenced subsidence – twice in April 2021. The landlord initially misplaced the photographs and subsequently did not address them, instead it took its own photographs. The landlord was expected to retain the evidence of repairs it was provided as well as respond to the resident about the matter.
The landlord and resident communicated by telephone significantly during the course of its repair and complaint handling. However, this Service has only seen one record of these dated 27 July 2021. The additional telephone conversations referred to in this report relate to advice obtained from the residents’ notes of activity, or from emails that refer to them. The landlord was expected to maintain robust records of the conversations it held with the resident so that it retained a history of events and activities that can later be relied on. This Service was not provided with this evidence, therefore suggesting they were not retained, and this was a record keeping failure.
The landlord asked the resident to confirm if the repair to the back gate was completed in an email it sent in August 2021. This Service recognises that the resident was away from their property and therefore delays to the gate installation were unrelated to the landlord. However, the landlord was expected to know if it had completed repairs, without the need to ask the resident, such as by checking its own databases. Taking this action indicated the landlord was uncertain about the fulfilment of its repairing obligations and this was failure.
Completing and keeping robust and good quality records is best practise and therefore expected. The landlord may come to rely on its record keeping as evidence of action taken, decisions reached, or assessments undertaken to name a few examples. This Service has seen evidence that the landlord does retain records, such as works orders, emails, and assessments that in some cases go back 10 years. However, this is not consistent practice and there are instances, such as missing phone records, or up to date repairs information where records were not readily available that limited the landlords understanding and progress of the repairs referred to in this report. Taking the positive and negative elements of the landlord’s record keeping into account this Service finds service failure in its management of information and record keeping practices.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of:
1. The landlord’s standard of workmanship and handling of repairs to the driveway, ground around the property, garden, and rear doors.
2. The landlord’s complaint management and level of compensation offered.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of:

c. The landlord’s information management and record keeping practices.

Reasons

The landlord did not complete the repairs reported by the resident, nor substantially investigate their reports of subsidence within reasonable timescales. The landlord completed a number of property inspections and raised repair works orders, but subsequently deleted the works orders and failed to remedy the outstanding repairs. Under the terms of the tenancy the landlord was obligated to complete the repairs reported and ensure the resident’s property met acceptable standards of repair. This was not achieved prior to the dispute coming to this Service.
The landlord provided good complaint responses and met many of the requirements of its complaint policy. However, the landlord did not uphold many aspects of the complaint handling code, nor did it communicate with the resident effectively which it recognised. The landlord did not meet the repair commitments it made to the resident in its complaint response which reduced the effectiveness of the complaint process as a means for resolution and its offer of compensation was low.
The landlord lost photographs it was emailed, did not retain records of property measurements and telephone conversations, made inaccurate repair notes and deleted repair works orders. Each of these contributed to causing delays to the completion and handling of repairs and caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in managing the repairs and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided within 28 days of its receipt of this report.
Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £800 comprising:
1. £250 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
2. £300 for its delays completing repairs and an assessment of subsidence and the inconvenience this caused to the resident for an unreasonable length of time between March 2021 and [at least] March 2022.
3. £250 for time and trouble owed to the resident in the pursuit of a remedy in this matter.
This compensation is awarded in addition to the £100 compensation the landlord previously provided for service failure and inconvenience, as outlined in its letter dated 7 September 2021.
The landlord is ordered to review the learning from this case in respect of its repairs scheduling. In particular, to review the accuracy of works order notes and to ensure cohesion and adequate oversight where follow on work is required. The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its actions to comply with this order within 28 days of receipt of this report.
The landlord is ordered to review the learning from this case in respect of its record keeping. In particular, to implement a staff refresher on the importance keeping and storing robust, contemporaneous records of all activities that it may later rely on to evidence the action it has taken, or advice it is provided. The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its actions to comply with this order within 28 days of receipt of this report.
The landlord is ordered to fully complete any outstanding repairs that were reported by the resident, if any remain incomplete, within 2 months of receipt of this report. Alternatively, to provide this service with evidence that the repairs discussed in this report have been addressed, and that the residents’ perception of subsidence is, or has been, appropriately addressed. Specifically, this is in relation to works including but not limited to:
1. Reset the brick pavers to the side drive and replace broken slabs.
2. Relay the concrete kerb to prevent the trip hazard by the drain cover.
3. Complete repairs that remedy drainage issues and prevent water pooling under the residents shed.
4. Remove the patio doors, renew the UPVC sill and reinstall the doors so that they open and close at all times of the year.
5. Re-secure and level the rear fence.
6. Repair the sunken driveway.
7. Assess the property and grounds with reference to subsidence concerns.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to respond to and complete any repairs that were identified either within the external contractors assessment, or that occurred during the subsequent 6-month monitoring period. This Service recognises the completion of the property assessment post-dated the completion landlord’s internal complaint procedure related to this investigation.