Lambeth Council (202204121)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204121

Lambeth Council

30 September 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 handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the temporary decant including restricted access to the resident’s belongings in storage.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and level of compensation offered.
4. This investigation also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

Records show the landlord commissioned a drainage survey on 11 November 2018, which recommended, works to line and seal 16 metres of the drain. Correspondence from the landlord to the resident indicates the recommended work was completed. It also showed that the resident would not allow internal remedial works to go ahead, until the root cause of the building movement had been determined, she did not agree with the landlord at this time that the movement was caused just by the drainage fault.
As part of her complaint the resident said that she had been raising her concerns about the stability of the building since 2014. She told this service that she had taken her landlord to court in 2015, to force them to carry out necessary and essential repairs, which the landlord did. The resident said the landlord was pre-warned during this process that this property was at risk of subsidence, but she believes this and her complaints about movement in the property were ignored. Whilst this information is acknowledged, the Ombudsman expects a formal complaint to be made within a reasonable amount of time, normally within six months of the matter complained about occurring. These historical events are referenced to provide contextual background to the current complaint only, this assessment focuses on events following the Structural Engineer’s inspection of the property on October 2019.

Summary of events

The resident had held a secure tenancy with the landlord, for a three-bedroom ground floor flat in a converted Victorian house since 8 October 2007. The resident lived there with her son. The landlord had no vulnerabilities within the household recorded.
The landlord commissioned a structural engineers report in September 2019. The report identified that:
1. The front bay windows structures were showing “slight signs of structural distress,” the probable cause was shallow foundations, and a tree on the pavement, drawing moisture from the ground underneath. Cracking to the rear was not judged to be an indication of significant movement.
1. It recommended further investigation with a bore hole, to inspect the depth of the foundations, any tree roots and soil at the front of the property.
2. Fine cracks in the brick arch lintel, over the ground floor window, should be injected with “Fosroc Nirofill TH epoxy resin” to maintain structural integrity.
3. Drains to the rear should be CCTV surveyed if not already completed and manholes at the rear to be tested for leaks, and treated if found.
On 19 December 2019, specialist geotechnical and environmental consultants carried out a site investigation, constructing a “trial pit” for the previously recommended bore hole inspection.
A further structural engineer’s report was produced for the landlord in January 2020. The report concluded extensive structural defects to the drainage system, the foundations were shallow and had been impacted by moisture in the soil, frost as well as moisture reduction and volume changes in the clay had all caused movement. Tree roots were also found, which it said were likely increasing moisture withdrawal.
It was recommended that the tree on the pavement outside the property be moved, and time allowed for settlement of soil and stabilisation of the building once removed, it should be followed by traditional underpinning work.
The resident reported to the landlord on 10 June 2020, that the plaster was falling down and there was a 2.5-inch gap between the new window and the wall. She wanted someone to attend urgently to inspect the movement. She reported that an action plan was in place before Covid, to assess the structure of the building and organise plastering work.
On 26 June 2020, the landlord’s surveyor emailed the resident apologising for the continued delay in getting the works underway, the specification was to hack off all the plaster from the effected walls and reinforce the cracks with helical bars internally and externally, the walls would be replastered and redecorated on completion. The email also informed the resident that she would have to be temporarily moved from her property and a decant request had been made to the housing team.
The temporary decant recommendation form was completed the same day, it indicated works could not be completed with the resident in occupation, the form certifies that works could be completed within six months. The landlord also raised an order with its contractor that day, to undertake the internal and external work at the resident’s property.
Evidence has been seen that the landlord was looking for alternative temporary accommodation (TA) for the resident from August 2020. The flat she was offered was a first floor three-bedroom flat in a block of flats. The flat was unfurnished and had no floor covering or curtains.
In an email dated 11 September 2020, prior to signing the licence agreement for the TA, the resident asked for.
1. Written confirmation she would be returning to her original flat.
1. Floor covering to prevent noise and to keep the property warm.
2. Curtains, as she was not prepared to buy new that she would not be taking back with her.
3. Storage for some of her belongings; she was moving from a very large three bedroom Victorian terraced flat, into a small purpose built one and lots of her furniture and belongings would not fit.
The resident was decanted from her property into temporary accommodation, the licence date states 28 October 2020, she said she was advised by the landlord that she would be in the temporary accommodation for six to nine months at the most. Her belongings were placed into storage facilities, which the resident said were outside of the Lambeth area, Maidstone in Kent, at the time she was not concerned as it was only for a short time period.
An internal email from the landlords housing officer 6 November 2020 asks for a disturbance allowance to be paid to the resident of £325.00, it said there was a possibility that the tenant would be away from her home for more than the suggested 6 months.
On 7 June 2021, the landlord’s neighbourhood officer, emailed the Surveyor advising, the resident wanted to know, if the work had started, when it was due to finish and when she might be able to move back in her home.
The resident told this service that after some time when the anticipated deadline had passed, she needed access to some of her belongings. When her belongings went into storage it was heading for winter, by this time it had moved into summer and all their clothes and things needed for summer were in the storage facility. The resident said that she was told by the landlord to put her request in writing, they would email the storage provider, who would give an estimate of the cost and a date for removal, however she would need to specify what boxes things were in and where they were located in the storage unit. The resident said she had only labelled boxes that were going to the TA, she had not itemised what was in the boxes for storage; the landlord had taken the boxes to the storage facility, so she could not identify where they had been placed. She said without this information she was not able to access her belongings and had to buy new.
Between September 2021 and September 2022, there were eight internal email messages from the Neighbourhood and Decant Teams to the Surveyor, requesting updates on completion of the works, due to the length of time the resident had been in TA and her belongings in storage. The was no substantive response to these requests for information.
The landlord provided a document, issue date 31 May 2022 headed “repairs work order,” addressed to its contractor it detailed all the remedial works required to the resident’s property and the associated costs. It identified a priority of seven working days, with a target date set at 9 June 2022. On works orders priority timescales and target dates usually relate to the time frame for completion of works, but it is not made clear on this document what these refer to.
The resident contacted this service as her formal complaint made to the landlord in April 2022 had not been acknowledged or responded to. This service contacted the landlord who responded on 9 June 2022, to advise that they had no record of the resident at the temporary accommodation address, but they had a resident elsewhere by the same name, but no complaints were registered for either. This service went back to the resident for more information and evidence of her living at the landlord’s address, she provided her full post code address and her rent account number.
This service wrote back to the landlord on 6 July 2022, asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint in 10 working days. When the resident had not received a response by the 12 August 2022, this service wrote again to the landlord, and advised it to send a response to her no later than 19 August 2022.
On 22 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord referring to an earlier telephone conversation asking if it had changed the locks, and if so, how was she to get access to her flat and her dog which was in the flat. She complained that this was unacceptable, the agreement had been in 2020 that the contractor would collect keys from the resident when work started, she had received no-communication that work was starting or that they were going to break into her home.
The landlord responded the same day apologising for the delay in carrying out the works, which it stated was part due to the change of contracts and part due to its mishandling of the case. It had intended to force entry and change the locks that day, as they thought it was empty. It said it would arrange a contractor to collect the keys the following week, but then the locks would be changed to ensure safety for the duration of the works. The resident agreed and asked for details of the work to be carried out and a completion date. The landlord agreed to send the full specification once it had re-visited with the contractor.
On 3 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report that she had received a call from the contractors at 8.22am because they were at her substantive property expecting the resident to let them in. There was confusion as to why no one had informed the contractor the resident had been decanted and the property was empty, the landlord could not explain.
The resident emailed on 7 August 2021, to complain that the landlord had not provided her with the update on 5 July 2022, that it had, assured it would.
On 8 August 2022, the landlord responded to the resident advising that a specification would be raised once the landlord had stripped out the ceilings and some of the walls to ascertain the condition of the fabric of the building. It advised the resident that initially all of the ceilings would have to be taken down, and walls where there were cracks, would be hacked back to bare brick. Once this had happened the landlord intended to carry out a full property inspection which included the basement and the flat above. The landlord indicated this should happen within the week.
The landlord provided a response to the resident’s stage one complaint submitted via HOS (copy undated; content suggests between 12 and 15 August 2022), in summary it said:
1. An order was raised with its previous repair’s contractor, 26 June 2020, to undertake internal and external works. As the works were extensive, the resident was decanted December 2020.
1. There were initial delays in service due to Government restrictions relating to the Covid pandemic.
2. The contract between the landlord and the maintenance contractor ended in July of the previous year (2021), causing further delays.
3. The works order was re-raised with the new contractor on 5 May 2022. The works to the resident’s home would be commencing on 16 August 2022.
4. It referred to a telephone call the week previously, where the residents future living arrangements were discussed, it confirmed the resident wanted to move back to her substantive property, but it provided details for the transfer process.
5. It apologised for the frustration and upset experienced “during the repair request” and offered £320.00 as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident contacted the landlord again 16 August 2022, advising she had patiently been waiting to hear from it with confirmation on when works were due to start. The landlord responded the same day saying it should have started that day but was now going on leave and would check on his return.
On 22 August 2022, the resident requested her complaint was escalated, in summary she said:
1. She did not accept the offer of compensation, the landlords handling of the whole process of repair and lack of care for her, and her son had been unsatisfactory. The situation had been a stressful and emotional experience for them, and she gave her reasons for escalation:
  1. She had been ignored and forgotten about between 2014 and November 2019 when she was given a couple of weeks to move. She had requested a SARS to evidence this (which had not been responded to).
  2. She was then again totally “abandoned and ignored with zero communication” from the landlord for 32 months, no calls or emails to let her know what was happening.
  3. She had finally got to meet with the landlord 27 July 2022, and was assured a schedule of works, which to date had not been provided.
  4. She had been advised at the meeting that 80% of the errors by its own admission were down to the landlord and not Covid 19.
  5. She still had no information on when she would be able to move back in which was causing her stress and anxiety, she was originally told 6-9 months. Her belongings had been in storage so long she had, had to replace most of it.
The landlord investigated the resident’s complaint and provided her with its stage two response on 29 September 2022, in summary it said:
1. The senior surveyor had inspected the property on 15 September 2022. It listed a number of faults identified, that were causing the movement and cracks, including degrading mortar in the brick infills of stud walls, a supporting brick pier had degraded, a lack of support under the stud walls. Further inspection under the floors was still required.
1. It listed the extensive remedial work required, new stud walls, re-building the supporting pier, repairing cracks with “heli-bars, re-pointing and then the work anticipated under the floors.
2. Remaining works to strip out the property were in progress; a senior surveyor would be attending over the next few weeks to assess the foundations and support under the floor.
3. It asked the resident to be assured it was monitoring the situation and apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused.

Post Complaint Response

The resident was unhappy with the stage two response, it gave her no indication of when she would be able to move back into her home. She has said the landlord’s lack of communication continued post the complaint process, it has failed to provide her with any updates, without the communication being instigated by her.
A further three internal emails have been seen, sent between October 2022 and January 2023 requesting updates and an estimated completion date from the surveyor, but no substantive response was seen, a few progress photographs were noted as sent.
An update from the landlord’s Surveyor stated that the property was taken back to its most basic components and fully refurbished throughout. The work commenced on 16 August 2022, and he had visited multiple times throughout the works, but dates were not available. It said, “a period of time from practical completion to a visit was required,” this was to ensure “no further cracks or displacement occurred”. It met with the resident on 3 August 2023, to inspect and sign off the works. A few snags were identified and had been escalated to resolve. The landlord had also authorised the installation of new laminate flooring throughout the property, which would start 21 August 2023.
As of 7 September 2023, an update from the resident confirmed that the work was still not completed. She said when she visited, she felt there was still quite a bit to be done, wiring was hanging out, external works were outstanding, and the fence was still down in the garden. She previously had her own internal doors in the property, which had to be removed and placed in storage, they are due to be taken out of storage, she is waiting to see what condition they are in now, after all this time and whether they were stored correctly and can be re-hung.
Currently the resident remains in temporary accommodation, and her belongings are still in storage, and she had not been given an estimated completion date. Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident more recently raised as part of her complaint with this service that she had an issue with the rent. The Ombudsman can only investigate matters that have been considered through the landlord’s formal complaint process. The issue with the rent occurred after the landlord’s final stage response, so cannot form part of this investigation. The resident was however, advised that she could raise this as a new complaint with her landlord, if she wished to do so.

Legal and Policy Context

The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to maintain the structure and outside of the property. This aligns with its repairing obligation at section 11 of the landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Repairs must be completed within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s Housing Management Repairs Policy sets out the repairs the landlord is responsible for, the list includes foundations, outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, and frames (including outside painting and decoration if it is required). It also includes walls, skirting boards, external doors and door frames, floors and ceilings inside the home, plaster finishes, (but not minor cracks or painting and decorating).
The repairs policy has a service timescale with five repair categories.:
1. Priority 1 – Urgent emergency, those repairs that must be undertaken within 24hrs and/or by emergency callout of the repair being reported.
1. Priority 2 – Emergency, those repairs that must be undertaken within 2 working days after the repair is reported.
2. Priority 3 – Routine repairs those repairs that must be undertaken within 5 working days of the repairs being reported.
3. Priority 4 – Routine repairs 2, those repairs that must be undertaken within 30 working days of the repair being reported.
4. Priority 5 – planned repair those repairs that are undertaken as part of an agreed program and/or improvement works within a specified timescale or 90 days unless otherwise stated.
The operation of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, implied a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement from 20 March 2020 that the landlord must ensure its dwelling was fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. The existence of a hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause occupants harm, including from structural collapse.
The landlords housing management complaints policy had three stages:
1. Early resolution: this complaint will be passed to the officer to resolve, who will agree timescales and actions required. A written response is not produced.
1. Local Resolution: requests must be made in writing, a senior officer will look at it, with 20 days to respond in writing.
2. The Review: requests should be made in writing within 20 days. They are undertaken by an Improvement and Review Officer and a member of Senior Leadership Group. There is no timescale for a response.
The landlords’ allocations policy says tenants who have been transferred or been decanted from their home temporarily, to allow major repairs to be carried out, will normally be made a direct offer of their former home when it becomes available for letting.
The landlords Housing Management Compensation Policy allows for financial compensation to be considered when it finds that a service failure has occurred that has an adverse effect on the complainant. Staff can consider when calculating compensation:
1. Loss of non-monetary benefit, examples include- in repair cases, the tenant may have been deprived of the full use and enjoyment of his or her home and experienced distress by living in those conditions.
1. Quantifiable loss – consider costs that would not have been necessary but for the service failure that has adversely affected the customer.
2. Service failure – which should consider any anxiety, frustration, worry, uncertainty caused to the complainant as a direct result of the failure. The amount will need to account for all circumstances including the severity of the distress, the length of time involved, the number of people affected and the personal circumstances of those affected.
3. Time and trouble in pursuing the complaint: only consider the complainant’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint beyond the minor costs routinely incurred when making a complaint.
4. Statutory and Contractual – examples include home loss payments or disturbance allowance for costs incurred in having to move home.
Government restrictions and guidelines for landlords for Covid 19 included:
1. 26 March 2020, national lock down.
1. 28 March 2020, only serious and urgent inspections and repair.
2. 18 May 2020, landlords could resume routine repairs, continue with external planned maintenance, and carry out void works.
3. 1 June 2020, all wider issues of repair, including internal planned maintenance could be resumed. Rules on social distancing and self- isolation had to be maintained.

Assessment

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s substantive property.

The landlord acknowledged its responsibility to repair. Given the nature of the disrepair, it acted appropriately by arranging for a structural engineer to inspect the property to establish the extent of the works required and whether there were any risks to the health and safety of the resident. The relevant surveys took place, and the final report was received by the landlord in January 2020. The report noted cracks to the building, of varying degrees both internally and externally. The report made recommendations for works to be carried out; specifically a tree removal outside the property, time for settlement followed by “traditional underpinning”. It made no reference to the property being unsafe or for the need for the resident to be moved at that time.
When such an inspection is carried out and identifies a need for any works to be carried out, it would be reasonable for the landlord to ensure that these are followed through within a reasonable period of time. In this case nothing further happened, until the resident contacted the landlord six months later, on 10 June 2020, expressing her concerns about the increase in the number and size of the cracks in her property.
The landlord in its complaint response, put the initial delay down to Covid 19 restrictions, it is acknowledged that the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic would have affected the timely completion of works, but this does not account for the full extent of the time taken or explain why there were initial delays. Covid restrictions for repairs, first came into effect at the end of March (26 March 2020) when the country went into lockdown, this was approximately two months after the landlord’s receipt of the report, so does not account for the delay in starting the works.
The Covid related guidance from 28 March 2020 specified serious and urgent inspections and repairs only. As the structural engineer’s report did not specify the need for any emergency or urgent action being required it was reasonable for the landlord to put any further work on hold whilst restrictions were in place.
Further Government advice was released 18 May 2020, to resume routine repairs and void works, and all further repairs restrictions were eased from 1 June 2020 to include the wider issues of repair including internal planned maintenance. Whilst works could resume, the Ombudsman acknowledges other factors would still have been in play, that delayed repair completions for landlords. These included backlogs of routine repairs, social distancing at work and self-isolation, that placed difficulties on both landlords and their contractors in resuming normal work. It was therefore reasonable to expect that some further delay in progressing the residents work would occur as a result. However, the expectation would be, that residents with outstanding repairs would be contacted, to explain ongoing delays and an estimate of when the repairs might be completed; there was no evidence that this was done.
It is not known why works did not commence from November 2020, only starting in August 2022, as this does not correlate with the Covid restrictions. In its complaint response the landlord also attributed part of its delay to the change in the responsive repair contractor in July 2021. This change in contractor occurred nine months after the resident was decanted and works were due to commence on her property. It was then also10 months after this date, before a works order was raised with the new contractor. The evidence does not support that this event was responsible for the delay, and it was not reasonable for the landlord to suggest this was a cause in its complaint response. The works have taken a significant and unreasonable length of time, and the reason for this is still unexplained which is a serious service failure.
The landlord was not able to evidence, any communication with the resident from the time the structural engineer attended, December 2019, until she contacted the landlord, expressing further concern at the deterioration in her property on 10 June 2020. As a consequence, the resident said that she was left feeling fearful for the family’s safety, living in the property. This was not reasonable, and could easily have been alleviated, if she had been advised of the outcome of the structural survey, as well as, being kept up to date with reasons for the delay in the interim. This was a service failure.
In response to this resident contact, on 26 June 2020, the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team did appropriately apologise to the resident for “the continued delay” in getting the works underway and gave a run-down of the work planned. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with an update after the delays, it lacked important detail, primarily, when work would commence, how long the work was expected to take, and a point of contact for the resident; this indicates that the full extent of the delay and inconvenience the resident had experienced had not been sufficiently considered and was not being addressed.
Despite having apologised to the resident, and restored communication with her on the remedial works in June 2020,the works have taken a significant and unreasonable length of time. Evidence indicates that the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team did not contact the resident again to provide information or updates, other than via its complaint responses, for another two years. This was not acceptable; the resident demonstrated she spent significant time and trouble chasing the landlord, trying to establish what works would take place, and when, without success and as a consequence, she felt abandoned and ignored.
Not only did the landlord not communicate with the resident, internally there was evidence that the teams responsible for both the resident’s temporary accommodation and storage facilities, chased regularly for updates on the progress of the work and contract end date, and also received no substantive response, which suggests there was no real schedule of works being followed.
In August 2022, eighteen months after being decanted, in its stage one response the landlord finally gave the resident, a date for the start of the works, but this however was all it gave her, which was not appropriate. Its response did not acknowledge the resident had waited for two and half years for remedial works to her property, and had been decanted for over 18 months. Her key concern was when she would be able to return to her home, as a minimum it should have provided her with a specification of works, the contract period, and the estimated completion date.
The landlords work did commence on 16 August 2022; however as evidenced by the landlord’s internal email from January 2023, three years two months after the resident was decanted and five months after the landlord’s final stage response, the work was not finished, and the completion date was still unknown, which was unacceptable.

The landlord’s handling of the temporary decant including restricted access to your belongings in storage.

It was a reasonable approach by the landlord to inform the resident that she would need to be decanted whilst the work was carried out, and the process had started. However, the expectation would have then been, for the landlord to follow this up quickly with the detail, so that the resident knew what she could expect; a timeframe for moving, how long she would spend in temporary accommodation and agree a point of contact as necessary. The landlord was unable to evidence, even on request, that there was further communication with the resident, which was not reasonable, and adds support to her view, that she was ignored.
A temporary decant recommendation form was completed, the information on which suggested it formed part of a procedure for authorising and organising a decant to temporary accommodation, for major works. However in the absence of a decant policy or procedure being provided, this could not be confirmed. The decant form, required certification that the works needed could be completed within six months, in order for a decant to be agreed, which the landlord confirmed. Although the landlord was unable to provide any formal communication with the resident on the decant, this timeframe tied in with the resident’s recollection that she would be decanted to temporary accommodation for six months.
There was evidence that the landlord searched for and identified a property for a six month stay, in August 2020, which was timely and appropriate.
The fact the resident had to negotiate carpeting and curtains, before she signed for the tenancy, was unreasonable. Even if a property is unfurnished, carpets and curtains are basic items that would be expected to be available in TA for thermal comfort and reducing noise transference. They are costly items for most tenants which are size and property specific, so cannot be transferred with the resident from one property to another; for these reasons residents of TA, would not usually be expected to supply these. The unfairness in this case is further compounded by the fact that the landlord had required the resident to move into the TA, for its own purposes. This service acknowledges the landlord did eventually supply these items, but it was not reasonable that she had to ask.
The lack of communication about the decant meant that the resident, also had to ask the landlord for written confirmation that she would be returning to her substantive property, and what she should do with the belongings that would not fit in the smaller sized property offered. This was not appropriate; this is the most basic of information that should be provided as part of the decant process; this is a service failing which the lack of a decant policy was likely to have contributed to.
It was appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with a disturbance allowance as part of the decant process, this was in accordance with its compensation policy. However the wording of the request suggests that it was requested not just because of the decant but rather that there was a possibility that the tenant would be away from her home for more than the expected timeframe. In the absence of any detailed records, the reason for this assertion was unknown; it was made shortly after the resident moved, so if delays were suspected at this early stage, it would be reasonable to expect the resident to be informed, but evidence suggests she was not.
It was noted in July 2022, that the resident’s dog was at her substantive home. Once the resident had been decanted, there was no reason for her to be in possession of the keys, the property was structurally unsound and the resident accessing the property, presented a potential health and safety risk, which was not reasonable. Any expectations from the resident on entering or using the property, once decanted, had not been appropriately managed by the landlord.
The resident said she was experiencing problems at the TA, the estate it was situated on was “rough” and her son had experienced intimidation which caused her anxiety. Living in this environment for longer than the planned short-term timeframe, clearly had a detrimental impact on the resident and understandably made her more anxious to return to her substantive home. It is not clear however from the information provided, whether this information was shared with the landlord. If it had, it was unlikely to have had any bearing on the time she spent there, as this was at the time, reliant on the delayed remedial repairs, but it could and should have, had a bearing on the landlords understanding of the impact and inconvenience being experienced by the family, in order to resolve the issues and consider redress.
The landlord put the residents’ belongings into storage, in a facility some significant distance away, this would not have been a problem if the remedial repairs had started on time and had completed within the six months specified. The residents’ belongings however remain in storage and have been there in excess of three years, which has caused detriment to the resident. In order to access her belongings a lengthy protocol had to be followed, which involved a written request, estimates from the storage facility, a knowledge of what was in each box and where it was located. This was not explained to the resident beforehand, which was not reasonable, if it had been she could have been mindful of this when she packed. As the landlord placed her belongings in storage, she was also unable to identify their location. It would be reasonable to assume, particularly as the landlord was responsible for the delay, that it would work with the resident to try and overcome the barriers to accessing her belongings, there is no evidence that it did. As a result the resident has not had access to her belongings since they went into storage in October 2020. As a consequence she had to replace many of the items that she needed, which caused her additional inconvenience and unnecessary financial hardship. The landlord had the ability under policy to offer compensation when considering detriment to the resident through its complaint investigation, it was not considered, which was not reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and level of compensation offered.

In July 2020, the Housing Ombudsman published a new complaint handling code, with the purpose of enabling landlords to resolve complaints raised by their resident’s quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. All member landlords were required to complete a self-assessment against the Code, and take appropriate action to ensure their complaint handling was in line with the Code, by 31 December 2020.
The landlord’s housing management complaints process for its tenants and homeowners, has timescales for responding to complaints, 20 working days for a stage one and 25 working days for a stage two response. The landlord’s policy does not align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which states that the maximum timescales for a stage one response should be 10 working days and 20 working days for a stage two, which is service failure.
The resident said that she made a complaint to the landlord in April 2022, and the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to her complaint. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, states that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so, if it does not accept a complaint a detailed explanation must be provided setting out the reasons why, there was no evidence that the landlord did either. The resident had to resort to contacting this service, who had to instruct the landlord twice, before it accepted the resident’s complaint, which was unreasonable.
The landlord had advised in communication with the resident and this service, that it had been responsible for significant delays in progressing the work; it put this down to the workload of staff and contractors. This was not acknowledged at all in the stage one response, which put any delay down to Covid and a change in contractor arrangement. Had this service failure been recognised in its stage one response, policy permits for compensation to be considered, for which it should give regard “to any anxiety, frustration, worry, and uncertainty caused to the complainant as a result of the failure and account for all circumstances including the severity of the distress, the length of time involved, and the number of people affected”. In addition it can consider time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. In this case the landlord apologised for the frustration and upset experienced “during the repair request,” and offered £320.00 as a gesture of goodwill. This was not reflective or proportionate to the level of service failure that had occurred or the level of detriment, inconvenience and stress caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s Code also states (p3.14), that landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The landlord failed, particularly in its stage two response, to address many of the points in the resident’s complaint. There were several significant issues, poor performance, excessive delays, lack of communication, no specification or date for completion, problems with storage and the stress and anxiety caused, that were just ignored. In doing this the landlord completely disregarded complaint handling objectives, to resolve complaints quickly, learn and drive service improvement. Instead it focused on the most recent event, that provided some resolution. It did not acknowledge events that had gone wrong over the previous three years, so failed to identify any of its service failings. As a result the landlord had not appropriately apologised, and missed opportunities to put things right. As a consequence, it could not demonstrate that it had learnt anything that would prevent these failings occurring again.
The stage two complaint response generally was poor, and did not align with recommendations in the Code, there was a failure to clearly set out its understanding or definition of the complaint. It did not evidence that it had reviewed the stage one complaint, or its findings and it did not revisit the compensation offered and whether this was appropriate. It also failed to make clear, that it was the landlord’s final response, resulting in this service having to instruct it to do so, which was not reasonable.

The landlord’s record keeping.

This investigation also considered the landlords record keeping, this was because there was an absence of information or records in relation to the repairs and refurbishment works for 2020 and virtually nothing for 2021; the majority of evidence provided was in the form of emails following the residents’ complaints.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that evidence can be provided to the Ombudsman when requested, but because this assists the landlord in its understanding of the condition of a property, enabling outstanding works to be monitored and enabling provision of accurate information to residents. Records also serve as evidence in any external processes which the resident and landlord may engage in.
Whilst externally commissioned reports were available for this investigation, the landlord was unable, even on request, to provide records to allow the Ombudsman to determine an adequate timeline of events relating to the remedial works on this property. The landlord had described to this service a “complex case with substantial works being undertaken”; as such we would have expected to see a significant amount of documentation that endorsed, supported, and monitored the project of works, which we did not. In the absence of this, there was no evidence of any reasonable oversight of the works, which were extensively delayed with no reasonable explanation, which was a significant failing of the landlord.
The landlord’s surveyor maintained that he visited and inspected multiple- times throughout the works, which he may well have done, but the evidence did not support this claim, because the visits, the purpose and the findings were not recorded, not even the dates of attendance were noted, which was not reasonable.
The final specified works had detracted from the structural engineer’s original recommendations, to remove a tree and underpin the property, but there was no explanation as to why. Whilst this service accepts that the landlord was not obliged to take on the recommendations in the report, having commissioned the specialist report, we would have expected to see some indication or reference, to how or why the decision to stabilise the building with heli-bars, instead of the recommended underpinning and tree removal, was concluded. It is important for landlords to have records for key decisions such as this, to demonstrate appropriate governance and that an audit trail is maintained.
Robust record keeping is also key to efficient service delivery. Two incidences occurred around access and keys to the resident’s substantive property. The original agreement in October 2020, was for the contractors to collect keys from the resident prior to any work starting. Had this information been appropriately recorded, the inconvenience and stress caused to the resident from early morning calls and the threat of a forced entry would have been avoided.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the temporary decant, including the restricted access to the resident’s belongings in storage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and level of compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

Despite the limited repair records provided, available evidence demonstrated that there had been unreasonable and largely avoidable delays in the completion of the remedial works at the property. There was little evidence that the works were effectively managed or overseen, or that schedules of works were agreed and or relayed to the resident, either prior to, or as a result of the complaints procedure. This culminated in the works not being completed for nearly four years after identification. With the resulting impact, of the resident being unable to return to her home or have access to her belongings for almost three of those years. Evidence also identified that there had been no contact from the landlord on this matter during this time, unless it was instigated by the resident.
Evidence showed that the resident was decanted from her property for major works, with very little discussion or consultation. The landlord cannot provide any formal information provided to her, explaining the terms and conditions of the decant. The duration had to be identified through the decant form, which stated six months, despite this the resident remains in the TA nearly three years on. The offer of redress was disproportionately low to the level of detriment experienced by the resident. She was originally expected to live there with no floor or window coverings and had to ask for storage facilities as no account had been given to the significantly smaller size of the TA to her existing home. The landlord placed her belongings a significant distance to her TA, and has done nothing to help overcome the issues to accessing them, or offered to replace goods or compensate her for the expense, despite the delay being its responsibility.
The landlord’s complaint handling policy does not align with the complaint handling code. The landlord had to take instruction twice from this service before it would agree to take the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not demonstrate that it understood the complaint, which was further compounded by the fact that it failed to investigate or respond to most of the points raised in the resident’s complaint, at stage two of its complaint handling process. Its investigations failed to identify any service failure in the substantive complaint even though it was evident there was, or the shortcomings in its complaint handling process. The resident suffered unnecessary and prolonged detriment as a result of the landlord’s denial of its own failings and missed opportunities, to put things right and offer appropriate redress.
The ability for this service to investigate this complaint, was significantly hindered by the lack of landlord records available. Significant work was undertaken, but there was no recorded evidence of keys decision being made, a schedule of works being followed, inspections or monitoring being under taken. The records around the residents decant and storage consisted of a basic email notification and a decant request form. Without the residents email requests for information and complaint and the resulting responses, there would have been virtually no information to guide the investigation in this case.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that within two weeks, a member of staff from the landlord’s executive team sends a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The Ombudsman Orders that the landlord within four weeks provides the resident with a full written assessment and action plan for progression of all the outstanding works, with an expected date of completion for each. It must provide the resident with an estimated move in date for her to return to the property.
The Ombudsman Orders that the landlord pays the resident within four weeks the total sum of £4,050.00 compensation, (this is in addition to the compensation it has previously agreed with the resident), which comprises of:
1. £1,450.00 for delays in repairs calculated at £50.00 per month for every month of delay beyond the original six month agreed for contract period to date (May 2021 – October 2023 £50.00 x 29 months).
2. £500.00 for the landlord’s failure to communicate appropriately with the resident throughout the major works – on storage, contract timescale, specification, the progress of works and reasons for delays.
3. £1,000.00 towards the cost of clothes and belongings the resident had to replace because she had no access to her belongings for an extensive period of time.
4. £ 450.00 in total for its complaint handling failures consisting of:
  1. £175.00 for complaint procedures not aligning with the Code.
  2. £25.00 for not taking the resident’s initial complaint.
  3. £25.00 for not adequately defining the resident’s complaint (stage two).
  4. £25.00 for not responding to all points raised in the complaint.
  5. £100.00 for not identifying service failures for the substantive complaint.
  6. £100.00 for not identifying service failures in its complaint handling.
1. £250.00 for the landlord’s failure to keep adequate records on repairs.
2. £400.00 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within four weeks provides a copy of, or completes its annual review of its complaint handling process against the Code, and be mindful of the fact a decision has been made for the introduction of a joint Local Government Social Care Ombudsman and Housing Ombudsman Service Code.
The Ombudsman orders, that within 8 weeks the landlord:
1. Review its current processes for recording repairs information to ensure that outcomes of inspections, progress, communication with residents, delays and completion of repairs are captured accurately in its records and can be accessed by relevant repairs and complaint handling staff. The outcome of this review should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within eight weeks.
2. Produce a set of procedures to manage the temporary decant process to ensure residents are well informed prior to being decanted, on the terms and conditions of any decant, lead in time, duration, storage and accessibility of belongings and future access. To include regular reviews of the circumstances and updates to residents for the duration.
3. The landlord assess itself against the recommendation set out in the Ombudsman’s recently published spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). Within eight weeks provide the Ombudsman with a copy of that assessment.