Lewisham Council (202209215)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209215

Lewisham Council

24 January 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of cracks in his property and the communal areas.
2. Concerns about the structural integrity of major components within the building.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a joint leaseholder of the landlord, which is a local authority. The lease is dated 15 December 2014.
The property is on the fourth floor of a 10 storey block of flats.
The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The landlord carried out a stock condition survey of the block, including structural components, in May 2012. It noted that the concrete balconies and stairs were installed in 1980. The balconies were noted as having a 60 year maximum life expectancy with 25 years remaining. The stairs had a 30 year maximum life expectancy with 10 years remaining.

Summary of events

Between March and July 2019 the resident and landlord exchanged emails about the resident’s concerns that cracks were appearing in walls and ceilings of several properties, including his. Cracks had also appeared in the concrete ceilings in the communal areas.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 July 2019 to confirm that his email had been passed to the major works team. He would receive a response within 10 working days.
On 17 August 2019 the resident emailed the landlord to say he had not received a response. He also pointed out that a previous survey described the block as being built in 1980 when it was in fact 1965. This meant some of the vital components were past their end of life.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 August 2019 to confirm that it intended to appoint a contractor to carry out a structural survey.
The landlord instructed an independent structural survey on 4 September 2019. This included a survey of the resident’s property. The surveyor noted the presence of hairline cracks in the kitchen, corridor, living room and bathroom ceilings. The report concluded that “very slight movement” had occurred to the block. It said this could be due to ground and/or thermal movement however, it was unclear whether this was ongoing. It concluded that the building’s overall structural integrity had not been compromised, and the building did not require emergency structural repairs to be carried out at that time.
The surveyor made the following recommendations:
1. A soils investigation be commissioned.
2. Samples of tree roots encountered during the investigation should be taken and tested.
3. A CCTV survey of the drains be undertaken.
4. As an alternative to the above, the cracks could be monitored for 1 annual cycle. In addition, the trees within the ‘zone of influence’ could be removed/reduced in liaison with an arboriculturist. If the cracking was found to be progressive the above investigations should be undertaken.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 November 2019 to seek an update on the outcome of the survey.
The landlord replied to the resident on 12 November 2019 to say it had sent out an email on 20 September but had accidentally left the resident off the list of recipients. It attached a copy of the survey and said it intended to monitor the situation, in line with the report. It also confirmed that it intended to instruct an arboriculturist survey to assess whether any works were required to trees in the immediate vicinity.
An internal email dated 14 January 2020 confirmed that monitoring studs were installed to the flat.
Crack monitoring reports provided by the structural engineer on 30 January and 30 April 2021 shows that there was no growth in the cracks.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 December 2021 to confirm that the last survey was carried out several years prior. It had decided to undertake monitoring but this had not been completed due to COVID-19 restrictions.
On 14 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that his insurance was due to expire and he was experiencing difficulties obtaining a new policy without providing a follow up on the structural issues. The landlord replied on 15 December to say his enquiry had been passed to its stock investment team who were managing the project.
On 27 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to request further details of steps taken by the landlord following the 2019 structural survey. He raised the following concerns:
1. The survey made a recommendation in relation to tree roots. He said that scaffolders had recently removed several branches from a tree very close to the block to erect the structure. He was concerned this had created an imbalance and that the tree may be more prone to collapse which could then cause resettlement issues to the ground.
2. He requested that a new structural survey be carried out.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 February 2022 to confirm that his enquiry had been forwarded to its stock investment team.
The resident sent an email on 13 March 2022 to chase the landlord for a response.
The landlord replied by email on 14 March 2022 to apologise for the lack of response and once again said the stock investment team had been asked to reply.
On 20 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again to request a response to his enquiry. The landlord replied the following day, 21 March, and repeated its previous response.
On 22 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask how he could raise a formal complaint. It replied the same day to say his enquiry had been passed to its customer relations team who would reply within 2 working days.
An internal email dated 29 March 2022 confirmed that following installation of the studs, monitoring visits were planned for April, July and October 2020 and January 2021 however these did not take place due to COVID-19 restrictions.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 April 2022 and apologised for the delay in acknowledging his complaint request. It said this was due to technical issues which caused delays in logging cases and replying to emails. It confirmed his complaint had been logged and that the repairs team would provide a response by 28 April. It asked him to let it know if this did not happen.
On 13 April 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to provide an update on various external works. It said that drainage surveys had been carried out at the block and any repairs identified would be completed.
On 28 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to chase his complaint response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 April 2022 to advise that the structural engineer who carried out the original inspection had been asked to return to site and carry out a final inspection.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 May 2022 to apologise that he did not receive his complaint response. It said the repairs team had been chased and would respond as soon as possible.
On 15 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that his property had been confirmed to have subsidence. He was concerned that the landlord had not carried out any of the structural engineers’ recommendations. The landlord had filled cracks only for them to reappear months later. The resident had experienced difficulties obtaining insurance because it had not carried out a full structural survey to establish the extent of the problem. He reiterated his concerns about the trees.
Between 17 and 18 May 2022 the landlord exchanged emails with the local authority about the trees. The local authority confirmed that it carried out a tree survey every 4 years and was due to carry one out in the area in June of that year. It said that any additional works could be requested to be scheduled in with its contractor.
On 21 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process because he had not received a response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 May 2022 to acknowledge his escalation request. It confirmed the repairs team would provide a response by 21 June 2022. It asked the resident to let it know if this did not happen.
On 6 June 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and repeated the content of its email of 29 April, adding that it had also asked the council to inspect the trees with a view to reducing their height.
The resident replied on the following day, 7 June 2022, to ask that the landlord confirm the action it took following the initial survey in 2012. He asked it to comment on the fact that the survey had said the stairs for the block expired in 1995 and the balconies in 2025.
The landlord emailed the local authority on 8 June 2022 to confirm that the 2018 survey (assumed to be a typographical error and should read 2019) recommended that all trees in close proximity to the block be reduced in height on a regular basis. It also confirmed that camera surveys of the drains showed sign of root penetration.
On 16 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to request access to carry out a final structural survey.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 23 June 2022, as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing its response.
2. It had written to the resident to request access for its structural engineer to carry out a final structural survey. It would try to contact the resident again to arrange an appointment.
3. It had asked the council to reduce the height of the trees.
4. If the resident remained dissatisfied he could escalate his complaint to stage 3 of the complaints process to be reviewed by the independent adjudicator.
The resident emailed the landlord’s independent adjudicator on 26 June 2022 to set out his reasons for escalating his complaint, as follows:
1. The landlord had not provided its comments on the findings of the 2012 survey which set out the limited lifespan of major components within the block, including the stairs and balconies.
2. The landlord has not provided a response to his request for details of action taken in response to the findings of the 2019 survey. Instead, it offered to carry out a further survey.
3. Cracks had been filled in only to reappear months after.
4. The landlord refused to acknowledge or respond to his contact until he made a formal complaint.
The resident contacted this Service on 2 August 2022 to express his dissatisfaction about the lack of complaint response. We wrote to the landlord on 15 August 2022 to request that it provide its final, stage 3, complaint response by 30 August.
On 2 August 2022 the landlord emailed the local authority to follow up its previous communication about tree works.
The landlord carried out a further structural survey of the resident’s flat on 5 August 2022.
The landlord contacted us on 30 August 2022 to say that the independent adjudicator, responsible for issuing the stage 3 response, had not received the resident’s escalation request. It requested a copy which was duly provided.
The local authority emailed the landlord on 2 September 2022 and confirmed that it was currently undertaking a tree survey of all its stock. It said that once this had taken place it would incorporate any works which the landlord required to be undertaken along with any generated by the survey.
On 7 September 2022 the independent adjudicator emailed the resident to set up a telephone appointment to discuss his complaint.
On 28 September 2022 the independent adjudicator issued the landlord’s stage 3 complaint response, as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay which was caused by the escalation request not being received. Its ‘IT’ team had been asked to investigate what went wrong.
2. It did not consider the 2012 survey “to be cause for alarm” because the components had lasted beyond the expected end of life. However, it would be appropriate to carry out another survey to inform the major works programme.
3. Following the 2019 survey the landlord intended to carry out a year long monitoring process. This was initially halted by the COVID-19 pandemic but should have commenced by the end of 2020 and it did not. This caused the resident “avoidable stress.”
4. The complaints process took too long and the communication failure caused “avoidable stress.”
5. It was now acting on the recommendations of the 2019 survey.
6. In order to put things right for the resident it recommended that the landlord:
  1. Pay the resident £150 compensation for the stress caused.
  2. Arrange a new survey of the building components.
The landlord instructed a further independent structural survey which was carried out on 12 October 2022. Its purpose was to review crack monitoring readings that had been taken in the flat between 14 January 2020 and 18 March 2021, and to review movement that had occurred at the block. The outcome of the review was as follows:
1. The movement patterns recorded within the resident’s property were generally indicative that the cracking has stabilised or reduced in magnitude.
2. Assuming the building was founded on a shrinkable subsoil, it concluded that, for practical purposes, there had been a partial rectification of ground movement.
3. It considered that the cracking was a result of subsoil desiccation due to dry weather in possible conjunction with tree root activity. It therefore recommended that the trees within the zone of influence were removed/reduced cyclically in conjunction with the advice of an Arboriculturist.
4. It also recommended that the cracks were made good by a specialist contractor, which include mechanical stitching.
5. In addition, it also recommended that the walls and ceilings to the rooms affected by cracking were lined and cross-lined if possible. It said that by just filling in the cracks, the cracks were likely to re-opened seasonally even if there was no net movement annually.
6. Future movement could not be precluded, as movement could occur because of dry weather without the occurrence of tree root activity in the subsoil.
The resident emailed this Service on 17 October 2022 to express his dissatisfaction at the stage 3 response. He felt the landlord had once again failed to address his concerns that the property was worthless due to subsidence. He was also concerned that the landlord had never carried out any of the recommendations set out in the 2019 survey.
In a further email to this Service on 11 February 2023 the resident said that the landlord had carried out works to fill the cracks which was pointless because they just reappeared at a later date.
On 24 November 2023 the resident sent a further email to this Service to say that the landlord had not arranged for any works to be carried out to the trees as agreed. He was concerned that his property remained “worthless.”
In its response to this Service dated 26 April 2023, the landlord confirmed that:
1. It planned to carry out the recommendations from the October 2022 survey. It said it was in the process of appointing a specialist contractor to undertake remedial works.
2. The local authority had agreed to reduce the height of the trees once major works on site had been completed, which it anticipated would be May 2023. No further update has been provided by either party for the purposes of this investigation.
3. The drainage issues identified were included in the major works programme and due to be completed mid-May 2023. No further update has been provided by either party for the purposes of this investigation.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

A landlord’s main repairing obligation is under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Section 11 requires landlords to make repairs to the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will:
1. Acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days.
2. If it cannot provide the complaint responses within these timescales, it will let the resident know and give the reason for the delay. Any extension will not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
3. Give residents the option to escalate their complaint to stage 3 of the process where their complaint will be considered by an ‘independent adjudicator’.
4. Acknowledge stage 3 complaints within 2 working days and issue a final decision to both the resident and the landlord within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation, reimbursement and remedies policy says it will consider making discretionary payments where it is not necessarily obliged to but has made an award to resolve a matter or complaint. This could be where a resident has experienced significant ‘time and trouble’ in making their complaint and/or been impacted significantly by the loss of a service.

Response to reports of cracks

It is outside the scope of this investigation to make a determination in relation to the resident’s allegations that the substantive issue has rendered the property worthless and/or difficult to insure. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further he should consider seeking independent legal advice as these are matters better suited to a court to decide. This investigation has focussed its assessment on whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the cracks he reported.
In its email to the resident on 29 July 2019 the landlord said his email had been passed to the major works team who would respond within 10 working days. However, by 17 August, 15 working days later, the resident had not received a response. There is no evidence to explain the delay therefore, this was unreasonable.
The landlord appropriately instructed an independent structural survey of the resident’s property on 4 September 2019. The report set out a number of recommendations, including that the cracks be monitored for 1 annual cycle. If the cracking was found to be progressive then other recommended investigations should be undertaken. In also recommended that tree works be undertaken.
The landlord made a mistake and left the resident off the circulation list when it emailed out a copy of the report on 20 September 2019. However, it rectified this straight away and provided a copy on the same day it was put on notice about the error. It confirmed it intended to follow the recommendations in the report to monitor the situation and progress works to the trees. This was an appropriate response because it followed the recommendations in the report.
An internal email dated 14 January 2020 confirmed that monitoring studs had been installed to the flat. An internal email dated 29 March 2022 confirmed that monitoring visits were planned for April, July and October 2020 however these did not take place due to COVID-19.
Crack monitoring reports provided by the structural engineer on 30 January and 30 April 2021 showed that there was no growth in the cracks. It is accepted that the landlord has reasonable grounds for delaying the visits to carry out monitoring. However, it did not explain why it waited so long to begin the monitoring which started after long after restrictions were first lifted.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to provide an update to the resident to set out the situation. Given the circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate with the resident to keep him informed of its plans to monitor, as and when COVID-19 restrictions allowed.
On 27 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and received a reply on 28 February 2022 to confirm that his enquiry had been forwarded to its stock investment team.
The resident did not receive a response. This was inappropriate because the resident was caused time, trouble and inconvenience by having to first chase the landlord for a response on 13 and 20 March 2022 and then later, having to raise a formal complaint on 22 March.
On 13 April 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to provide an update on various external works, including that drainage surveys had been carried out at the block and any repairs identified would be completed. This was appropriate because this was one of the optional recommendations made in the 2019 survey report.
On 15 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to express concerns that the landlord had not carried out any of the structural engineers’ recommendations. The report made a number of recommendations, including an initial monitoring period and tree works. While progress was hampered by COVID-19 the evidence shows that the landlord did carry out monitoring of the cracks, albeit after an avoidable delay once restrictions lifted. Furthermore, it also carried out a drainage survey as recommended.
However, there was no evidence that the landlord had progressed a key recommendation to carry out works to the trees. The local authority owned the trees therefore the landlord could not simply go ahead with the works itself. The landlord’s evidence shows it did not start enquiries into tree works until May 2022. It is unclear why the landlord failed to progress this recommendation, until almost 3 years on from the date of the 2019 survey. This was frustrating for the resident particularly because he was caused additional distress when scaffolders removed branches which he felt could exacerbate the problem.
In its email to the local authority on 8 June 2022 the landlord set out its reasons for requesting works to the trees. In its stage 2 complaint response of 23 June the landlord confirmed the same to the resident. However, it failed to acknowledge the significant delay in progressing the works. As such it did not identify lessons learnt or consider how it might put things right for the resident, which was a failure.
On 2 August 2022 the landlord emailed the local authority to follow up its previous communication about tree works, the last of which was an email it has sent 2 months prior. It is unclear why the landlord took so long to follow up on this issue. Having already delayed progressing the works for nearly 3 years, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to do all it could to resolve the matter as soon as possible.
The local authority emailed the landlord on 2 September 2022 and confirmed that it was currently undertaking a tree survey of all its stock. It said that once this had taken place it would incorporate any works which the landlord required to be undertaken along with any generated by the survey.
In its response to this Service dated 26 April 2023, the landlord confirmed that the local authority had agreed to reduce the height of the trees once major works on site had been completed, which it anticipated would be May 2023. It is acknowledged that although the landlord delayed in starting the process, some of the delay was due to the local authority’s role in carrying out the work which was out of the landlord’s control.
However, the estimated date for completion was nearly 4 years after the survey recommended that works be carried out which was unreasonably long. The landlord may wish to consider if it could have done more to expedite the process, given the circumstances. This could have included increasing its effort to ask the local authority to act sooner or whether it could have sought permission to undertake the works itself.
Given the ongoing concerns, the landlord acted appropriately by instructing a further independent structural survey, carried out on 12 October 2022. Given that the report concluded that the cracks had stabilised, the report made recommendations with regards to remedial works. This report also highlighted the importance of carrying out works to the trees on a cyclical basis.
In its response to this Service, dated 26 April 2023, the landlord confirmed that it planned to carry out the recommendations from the October 2022 survey. It said it was in the process of appointing a specialist contractor to undertake remedial works. Given that 6 months had already passed since the survey’s recommendation it is unclear why it had not already done so and demonstrated a further unreasonable delay.
The landlord’s response to the 2019 survey was to monitor the situation. This was reasonable because it was in line with the recommendations in the report. However, the landlord failed to carry this out as soon as it was practical to do so and its communication was poor. Although it was not obligated to do so under the recommendations of the report, it did carry out a survey of the drains and appropriately included any issues identified in its major works programme.
However, its response to the key recommendation that works be carried out to the trees was significantly delayed, meaning it took nearly 4 years before works could be carried out. Its communication with the resident was limited in terms of frequency and detail provided. This was a failure in terms of the landlord’s response.
In its stage 3 complaint response of 28 September 2022 the independent adjudicator concluded that the resident was caused “avoidable stress” because the landlord delayed the monitoring period. It offered the resident £150 compensation for avoidable stress in relation to the monitoring but also in relation to the complaints process. It did not set out how much was apportioned to each failure. Therefore, this investigation considers it reasonable to apportion half to each failure. This means £75 was awarded as compensation for the delayed start to the monitoring period.
The failings identified in this report include the landlord’s delay to the start of the monitoring of the cracks, the delayed enquiries into tree works and lack of effective communication. These failures amount to maladministration because they caused the resident distress, inconvenience and time and trouble.
The landlord has acknowledged some failings but not all. Having considered the nature of the failures, detriment caused to the resident and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £500. The landlord may deduct the £75 compensation already offered if this has been paid.

Structural integrity of major components

The survey carried out in 2012 was carried out prior to the resident’s purchase of the property. Although not explicitly stated in the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident was aware of the outcome of the survey at the point of purchase. In any event, as with any home purchase, the principle of ‘caveat emptor’ or ‘let the buyer beware’ will apply. This implies that ultimately, the onus was on the resident to satisfy himself that the property was suitable before he purchased it.
The survey was conducted as a guide to inform the landlord’s major works programme. The survey did not highlight any specific defects in relation to the stairs or balconies and consequently no remedial works were required. Furthermore, the resident has not reported any specific repairs in relation to these components. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord has failed to respond to defects identified in these areas.
However, the stage 3 complaint response appropriately recommended that the landlord carry out a further survey of the building components to inform the major works programme. There is no evidence that the landlord did so which was a failure. This was because it missed an opportunity to satisfy both itself and the resident that the building remained safe.

Complaint handling

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 22 March 2022. The landlord replied to say he would receive a response within 2 working days. However, it did not contact him until 12 April, 15 days later. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay and provided a reasonable explanation. It confirmed that the repairs team would provide a stage 1 complaint response by 28 April.
When the resident did not receive his complaint response by 28 April 2022 he was caused inconvenience, time and trouble by having to email the landlord to chase. It replied on 6 May 2022 to apologise that he did not receive his complaint response. It said the repairs team had been chased and would respond as soon as possible.
Once again, the landlord failed to provide a response. In the absence of any further communication, the resident contacted the landlord on 21 May 2022 to request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process.
By not providing a stage 1 complaint response the landlord did not adhere to its complaints policy and failed to provide a service to the resident. This was inappropriate, causing him frustration and distress. Furthermore, it undermined the resident/landlord relationship because the resident could not have confidence that he could resolve his complaint through the internal complaints process.
Section 5.11 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code (the Code) says that landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it has completed stage 1. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to use the escalation request as a final opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint at stage 1. If the resident remained dissatisfied, he would then benefit from the landlord’s stage 2 review of the decisions made at stage 1, to ensure they were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. That it did not do so was a failure.
Instead of raising a stage 1 complaint, the landlord emailed the resident on 27 May 2022 to acknowledge his escalation request to stage 2 of the process. It confirmed the repairs team would provide a response by 21 June 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 23 June. Although this was within its timescales for responding to stage 2 complaints, it was issued 63 days after the resident made his first complaint which was unreasonable. This was because it was the landlord’s first complaint response.
The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay but it failed to provide any explanation as why the complaint handling failure had occurred which was inappropriate. It also meant that it did not take the opportunity to learn from the process. There is no evidence that it identified what went wrong and what it would do next time to make sure that it did not happen again.
Its compensation policy says it will consider making a discretionary payment where a resident has experienced significant ‘time and trouble’ in making their complaint and/or been impacted significantly by the loss of a service. The resident was caused time and trouble, inconvenience and frustration by the loss of service therefore it would have been reasonable to have considered compensation. That it did not do so was a further failure.
Section 5.6 of the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response failed to address the resident’s concerns about the 2012 survey and the impact this may have on the building’s structural integrity. This caused him time, trouble and inconvenience because he had to raise the complaint again at stage 3 in order to receive the landlord’s response. Furthermore, the stage 3 response failed to address the resident’s ongoing concerns about delays in carrying out works to the trees. This caused the resident further time, trouble and inconvenience because he had to raise it as a complaint to this Service in order to seek a resolution.
It is concerning that in its emails to the resident on 12 April and 27 May 2022, the landlord asked the resident to let it know if he did not receive the complaint response. Section 3.1 of the Code says that the landlord must have a person or team assigned to take responsibility to ensure that complaints receive the necessary attention. Section 3.4 says that residents are more likely to be satisfied with complaint handling if the person dealing with their complaint is competent, empathetic and efficient. Therefore, it was not appropriate to place the onus on the resident to notify it if the complaint response was not issued.
The resident emailed the independent adjudicator on 26 June 2022 to set out his reasons for escalating his complaint. The resident did not receive a response from the landlord and contacted this Service on 2 August 2022. It transpired that the complaint had not been received until a copy was provided by us on 30 August. Having received the complaint, the stage 3 complaint response was sent out on 28 September 2022 which was within the landlord’s timescales.
The independent adjudicator appropriately apologised for the delay and provided a reasonable explanation. It said the IT team had been asked to investigate what went wrong. However, it is not clear why this exercise had not been undertaken as soon as it was put on notice that a complaint had been missed. Had the investigation taken place immediately it might have been able to provide a full explanation to the resident, setting out how it would make sure such a failure did not occur again in the future. This would have gone some way to restoring the resident’s confidence in the process which was particularly important given the failure at stage 1 of the process.
The stage 3 response appropriately acknowledged that the complaints process took “too long” and the communication failure caused avoidable stress. In order to put things right for the resident it recommended that the landlord pay the resident £150 compensation.
However, the response identified avoidable stress caused by both the delays in monitoring the cracks and in the complaint handling process. Therefore, it is unclear as to how much compensation was apportioned to the complaint handling failures. This investigation considers it reasonable to apportion half the amount of compensation to each failure. This means the landlord was ordered to pay £75 for complaint handling.
The complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. The landlord failed to provide the opportunity for the resident to have his complaint resolved at the earliest opportunity through the internal complaints process. In failing to provide a service to the resident it caused him inconvenience, frustration and time and trouble. It made an attempt to put things right late on in the complaints process but failed to address the specific failures. The offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Taking into account the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £400 compensation. The landlord may deduct the £75 it has already offered if this has been paid.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cracks in his property and building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the structural integrity of major components within the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in starting the monitoring period for the cracks. It failed to progress the recommendations of the structural survey in relation to works to the trees. It delayed in instructing a specialist contractor to carry out remedial works.
The landlord failed to carry out a further survey of the major structural components of the building, as set out in its stage 3 complaint response.
It failed to provide the resident with a stage 1 complaint response. It failed to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 and stage 3.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1000 compensation, comprised of:
1. £500 for the time and trouble and distress caused to the resident by the delays in responding to the recommendations made by the structural reports. The landlord may deduct the £75 it has already offered if this has been paid.
2. £100 for the frustration caused to the resident but its failure to carry out a further survey of the structural components.
3. £400 for the inconvenience, frustration and time and trouble caused by the complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £75 it has already offered if this has been paid.
Write to the resident to apologise for the failings in this case. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to carry out staff training on complaint handling, to ensure all complaints are handled in line with its complaints policy.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to carry out a survey of the structural components within the building if it has not already done so. It should write an action plan in response to any issues raised. A copy should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer any compensation previously offered if it has not already been paid.
The landlord should consider reviewing the number of stages in its complaints process, to avoid it becoming unduly long.