London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202216711)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216711

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

8 August 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of structural, and drainage issues with her property;
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident held a secure joint tenancy that began on 23 May 2022. The property is a 3 bedroom semi-detached house, and the landlord is a local authority.
In August 2022 the resident arranged for a private building survey, as she had applied to purchase her property via the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme. The surveyor identified wall cracks, and possible structural movement. On the surveyor’s advice, the resident arranged a camera drain survey, which identified cracks and other drainage issues. The resident reported the matter to the water company that owned the drains, which completed its own survey and confirmed the cracks. The resident said that the water company had advised her that it would complete the drainage repairs free of charge, but that it needed the landlord to contact it to proceed.
The landlord owned a property and facilities services group (PFSG), which was involved in the resident’s complaint, and described itself as an “autonomous business with a private sector governance structure”.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process. It said that it would aim to provide residents with a written complaint response within 10, and 30 working days at stage 1 and 2 respectively (the stage 2 timeframe has since been reduced from 30 to 20 working days).
The policy said that the landlord would ensure that all investigations would be undertaken in an appropriate manner “giving residents the knowledge that all complaints are taken seriously and are used to practice continuous improvement”.

Summary of events

On 17 August 2022 the landlord’s RTB team sent the resident its RTB offer, which it invited her to accept. The resident replied with a copy of the building survey of her property, and highlighted its findings. She asked the RTB team to share any past subsidence issues that it was aware of.
On 24 August 2022 the resident reported to the landlord the findings of the drainage survey that she had arranged. The resident subsequently told the Service that she had not received the drainage surveyor’s report back at that stage, but that it had advised her to report the matter urgently due to the volume of water flowing under her property. She said that once she had received it, she passed the drainage survey camera footage to the landlord who confirmed its receipt.
On 2 September 2022 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s property, and confirmed the wall cracks. The resident said that the surveyor advised her that a purchase order for a structural engineer would be raised, and any necessary works informed by the engineer’s inspection.
On 13 September 2022 the landlord’s RTB team apologised to the resident for its delayed response. It confirmed that it was not aware of any past or current subsidence at the resident’s property, but advised that its own survey was for valuation purposes only.
On 13 October 2022 the resident made her complaint to the landlord, which summarised the events described above. She highlighted that she had provided the landlord with the water company’s reference and other information, to make it as simple as possible for the landlord to get her drains repaired at no cost. She said that over the prior weeks she had called the landlord several times to chase progress on the drains, and on her structural survey. She said that each time the landlord told her that her housing officer (HO) would call her back, but that she had never heard from the HO.
On 17 October 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and stated that it would aim to respond by 31 October 2022.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord’s property and facilities services group (PFSG) told the resident that the landlord had passed it her complaint, and apologised for the delay. The PFSG said that it was arranging for a structural engineer to attend the resident’s property, and asked that she allow 2 weeks for the engineer to contact her directly.
On 16 and 24 November 2022 the resident chased the PFSG for progress with her structural survey. She stated that she had spoken to the landlord who had said that it was unable to see that the structural engineer purchase order had been approved. She expressed her fear that she would lose her mortgage offer if the landlord continued to delay. On 25 November 2022 the PFSG said that it had chased the landlord for the purchase order.
During late 2022, the resident told the Service that the landlord had not responded to her complaint, and had changed the status of her RTB application to ‘on hold’. On 2 December 2022 the Service asked the landlord to issue her its stage 1 complaint response within 5 working days.
On 12 December 2022 the landlord apologised to the resident that it had been unable to meet its timescale to respond to her complaint. It said that this was due to it awaiting an architect appointment, and that it would now aim to send its complaint response by 12 December 2022. The resident highlighted that the revised date that the landlord had advised was “today”. She queried why she needed an architect, and asked whether the landlord meant to say, ‘structural engineer’. She asked if the structural engineer’s purchase order had now been approved.
On 13 December 2022 the landlord told the resident that a purchase order had been sent to the architect, who had been asked to contact her as a priority. The landlord’s response did not answer the resident’s query regarding whether it had meant to say ‘architect’ or ‘structural engineer’, and the Ombudsman has seen no record of when this was clarified. The copies of the survey reports provided by the landlord to the Service stated that ‘architect’ was part of the contractor’s company name. As such, the remainder of this report uses the term ‘structural engineer’, even where either party had referred to the actions of the ‘architect’.
On 16 December 2022 the PFSG confirmed to the resident that the purchase order had been authorised. It said that the structural engineer would contact her in early January 2023.
On 25 January 2023 the resident emailed the manager of the landlord’s HO, who she said had still not contacted her since her initial August 2022 reports. Her key points were as follows:
1. She said that she had been called by a structural engineer who wanted to arrange a camera drain survey. She provided the footage and reports of the previous drain survey, and queried why another one was necessary.
2. She emphasised that the water company was willing to complete the drainage repairs free of charge, and implored the landlord to contact them. She highlighted that the delays were threatening her mortgage offer that expired in 1 month.
3. She said that her property was becoming damp with mould patches appearing, and that her daughter was asthmatic.
On 25 January 2023 the landlord’s HO apologised to the resident for the delay in contacting her. The HO said that they had called the water company but that the water company had stated that it had nothing on its system, and that the resident should contact them directly herself.
On 14 February 2023 the resident told the HO that she had also not gotten anywhere with the water company. She said that the structural engineer had called to cancel the appointments it had made with her, but had given no reason. She said that she was unable to put into words how frustrating the previous 6 months had been.
On 21 February 2023 the Service summarised the previous requests to the landlord, and asked that it respond to her complaint by 1 March 2023, or a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) would be issued against it.
On 11 March 2023 the Service issued a CHFO to the landlord’s chief executive officer (CEO). The landlord was ordered to provide the resident, and the Service with its stage 1 complaint response by 17 March 2023.
On 23 May 2023 the Service wrote to the landlord’s CEO to confirm the landlord’s noncompliance with the Ombudsman’s CHFO, and that the resident’s case would be progressed for investigation. The Service encouraged the landlord to provide a decision on its redress to the resident.
On 26 May 2023 the PFSG apologised to the resident for the delays and inconvenience, and referred to the Ombudsman’s investigation. It said that the structural engineer was due to undertake 2 surveys at the resident’s property over the next 10 days. It acknowledged that the resident had first complained in October 2022, had waited 8 months for the structural engineer’s appointment, and offered her £200 compensation.
On 31 May 2023 a drainage contractor issued its report of its survey of the resident’s drains. It noted the poor condition of the drains, but confirmed that as a shared run, it was the responsibility of the water company to repair.
On 20 June 2023, the resident asked the PFSG to confirm the results of the structural engineer’s surveys. She asked when the works would take place if structural issues had been identified, and when her RTB could progress. She stated that she did not want to discuss compensation until she was able to buy her property. The PFSG advised the resident that it was expecting the survey results in 10 days, and that she would need to ask the landlord about her RTB.
On 6 July 2023 the PFSG told the resident that it was still awaiting the survey results, and apologised for the delay. On 10 July 2023 the resident explained the financial loss that she would suffer due to the landlord’s delays. She said that the change in interest rates meant that the best 5 year fixed rate mortgage that she could hope for would cost £12,420 more than her offer that had expired on 28 February 2023. She said that depending on what work was required, and how long it took, that figure could increase further, but that she would accept that compensation amount if it was paid within 1 month.
On 11 July 2023 the PFSG said that it had discussed the resident’s comments with the landlord, but could not agree to her compensation request. It stated that the landlord had no control over interest rates or mortgage offers, and that there was no guarantee that the purchase process could have been completed by 28 February 2023. It said that it did understand the resident’s frustration and inconvenience, and that it had increased its compensation offer to £400. The resident explained to the PFSG why she was declining its offer, and asked that it share the structural survey as it may allow her to secure a mortgage offer before further interest rate increases.
On 18 July 2023 the structural engineer issued its ‘update report’ of the resident’s property, which noted cracking and “mild damp” in various locations on both floors.
On 11 October 2023 the PFSG told the resident that it was expecting the structural engineer’s internal repairs report for her property by the end of the week. It said it would then schedule works as a priority. The resident asked that she be provided with a copy of the report to allow her to make further decisions.
On 20 October 2023 the PFSG confirmed it had received the report. The resident asked the PFSG to provide her with a copy on at least 2 further occasions.
On 26 October 2023 the landlord’s internal emails confirmed that the water company had completed its drainage works. The emails further stated that the cracks to the resident’s property were hairline and cosmetic only, and as such their repair would not be authorised. It stated that the resident’s RTB could proceed on a “sold as seen basis”.
During this investigation the resident told the Service that the landlord later provided her with a copy of the structural engineer’s report, which had not identified any structural issues. She said that the landlord did not undertake any repairs to her property, and that her purchase of it was completed on 15 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

The resident made the landlord aware of the drainage, and potential structural issues with her property in August 2022. The landlord initially responded in a timely manner, and its surveyor inspected the resident’s property at the start of September 2022. However, from that point onwards it was not disputed that the resident was severely inconvenienced by the landlord’s delays in progressing the matter.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, and to offer her compensation. However, its offer was not proportionate to the extent and duration of its failings, nor the extensive time, trouble, and distress experienced by the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore found severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of structural, and drainage issues with her property.
The resident made her associated complaint in October 2022, which the landlord initially acknowledged in line with its policy. However, the landlord then failed in all regards to handle the resident’s complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), or its own policy.
Paragraph 32 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that, “The Ombudsman may decide a member’s complaints procedure has been exhausted, and the complaint may therefore be duly made… where, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there have been repeated failures in the handling of a complaint”.
It was on that basis that the resident’s complaint was duly made to the Ombudsman as, despite the interventions of the Service and the issuance of a CHFO, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a formal response, or otherwise handle her complaint appropriately. The Ombudsman has therefore made a further finding of severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The resident had made an RTB application for her property, and urged the landlord to promptly respond to her drainage and structural issue reports, as her mortgage offer was due to expire in February 2023. The resident’s purchase of her property did not complete until almost a year later. Interest rates had risen in the intervening period, which meant that the resident’s mortgage had less favourable terms than her previous expired offer.
The resident proposed to the landlord that its compensation offer should reflect the difference in the cost of her original 5 year fixed term mortgage offer, which had expired, and the mortgage that she ended up with after interest rates had risen. The landlord stated that there was never any guarantee that the resident’s purchase would have happened before her original mortgage offer had expired. It further stated that it had no control over interest rates or mortgage offers, and would not accept liability for the increased cost of the resident’s 5 year fixed rate mortgage.
While the resident’s frustration and view were understandable, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine liability. If the resident believes that the landlord does have a legal obligation towards her increased mortgage costs, this would be more appropriately considered by the Courts. This is because the decisions of the Court are legally binding, whereas the Ombudsman’s decisions are not. The resident may wish to take independent legal advice if she believes this to be the case. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the significant time, trouble, and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings, and in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Structural and drainage issues

In August 2022 the resident advised the landlord of the identified drainage issues, and its need to liaise with the water company that would complete the necessary repairs. On 2 September 2022 the landlord’s surveyor told the resident that a purchase order for a structural engineer would be raised to undertake a survey of her property. Over the following weeks the resident chased the landlord for updates on both matters. She said that each time the landlord promised that its HO would call her back, but never did. The landlord’s failure to keep its promises would have been very frustrating for the resident, and led to her making her complaint on 13 October 2022.
The landlord’s complaint handling has been separately assessed below. However, the resident’s complaint provided the landlord with the ideal opportunity to address its initial communication failings and delays, and to put things right by progressing the structural survey and drainage issues in a timely manner. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that its investigations would assure residents that their complaints were taken seriously. The landlord’s failure to in anyway handle the resident’s complaint in line with its own policy, was mirrored by the delays and failures in its handling of the issues she had raised. For the next 12 months those failures caused the resident undue time, trouble, and distress.
In early November 2022, some 2 months after the landlord’s surveyor had told the resident that a purchase order would be raised, its PFSG advised her that she would hear from the structural engineer in the next 2 weeks. The 2 weeks passed by and having gotten no response from the PFSG, the resident contacted the landlord directly. The landlord told the resident that the purchase order for the structural engineer had not yet been approved. When the PFSG responded to the resident towards the end of November 2022, it admitted that it had been chasing the landlord with regards to the purchase order.
The lack of clarity regarding the respective roles and responsibilities of the landlord and its PFSG has been considered in the assessment below. Nevertheless, as with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, it is reasonable to conclude that the absence of clear ownership of her reported issues contributed to the protracted service failures that she experienced.
Responsibility for the issues raised by the resident, along with her associated complaint, appeared to briefly switch again in mid-December 2022, when the next update to the resident was provided by the landlord. The landlord’s confused interjection has been considered below, but it confirmed that the purchase order for the structural engineer had been approved, and that she would hear from it the following month. It was unreasonable that the landlord offered the resident no explanation as to why it had taken 15 weeks from when its surveyor had advised that a purchase order would be raised to reach that point.
In January 2023 the resident had still not heard from the HO, whom the landlord had said would call her back when she began chasing it from August 2022. The resident emailed the manager of the HO on 25 January 2023, and confirmed that she had now heard from the structural engineer. She queried why a further drain survey was being arranged when the water company had already identified, and committed to repairing the issues. She highlighted the impact of the landlord’s delays, the damp that was beginning to form in her property, and the health implications for her daughter. While the HO did call the resident the same day, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it offered any explanation to the resident’s understandable concerns, or why it had taken it 5 months to contact the water company.
It was unclear why it was then the HO that unsuccessfully dealt with the water company. This would more commonly be a function of a landlord’s repairs or maintenance teams, which would be best placed to identify any works it may be responsible for, and action them accordingly. This did again appear to highlight the lack of clarity regarding ownership and responsibility within the landlord’s service areas, and its multiple contact points that the resident found herself needing to try. It was further unreasonable that when the HO made no progress with the water company, responsibility for the matter was simply passed back to the resident.
In mid-February 2023 the resident expressed her exasperation to the landlord that the structural engineer had cancelled her appointments without explanation. By this point it had been 6 months since the resident had reported the structural and drainage issues to the landlord, with seemingly no progress made at all. It was entirely understandable that the resident told the landlord that, “I can’t explain in words my frustration with this entire process”
It was over 3 months later, and only after the interventions of the Service, that the landlord’s PFSG contacted the resident to advise her of the forthcoming structural engineer surveys. On 31 May 2023 the landlord’s drainage contractor confirmed that there were significant issues with the resident’s shared run, which the water company would repair. It would have been extremely frustrating to the resident that the landlord had taken 9 months to arrive at the exact same position that she had advised it of in August 2022.
It was a further 5 months before the landlord confirmed that the cracking in the resident’s property was cosmetic, and that there was no evidence of undue structural movement. In the intervening period, the structural engineer confirmed that the resident’s property was suffering with “mild damp” caused by the drainage issues. The water company completed the drain repairs in September 2023, a full year after the resident had urged the landlord to contact it.
It is acknowledged that the landlord would have had limited influence over the work schedule of the water company and, to a lesser extent, the structural engineer. It therefore may have been the case that some of the delays were beyond the landlord’s control. However, the landlord did not dispute that it took 15 weeks to progress the structural engineer’s purchase order, and appeared to take a full 5 months before it made any effort to liaise with the water company. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with any explanations regarding these delays, or its numerous communication failings.
The resident chased the landlord for updates and information throughout this period and beyond, and her intense frustration and disappointment was entirely understandable. The landlord has failed in all regards to demonstrate any efforts to progress matters in a timely manner, or to keep the resident appropriately informed. The Ombudsman has therefore found severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of structural, and drainage issues. The landlord’s compensation offer to the resident for these failings has been considered in the assessment below.

Complaint handling

The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 13 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 4 days later, and stated that it would respond to the resident by the end of the month. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord updated the resident once it was aware it would not meet its own deadline, nor that it informed her of the role or involvement of its PFSG.
The landlord’s PFSG contacted the resident on 4 November 2022, but its only explanation was that the landlord had passed it her complaint. It told the resident that it was arranging the structural engineer’s attendance (although as above, 3 weeks later it admitted that it was still chasing the landlord for the necessary purchase order). The PFSG apologised to the resident for its delayed contact, but otherwise failed to give any indication of when or how it would progress her complaint on the landlord’s behalf.
On 12 December 2022, following contact from the Service, the landlord apologised to the resident for its delayed complaint response. The landlord attributed its delay to the fact that it was awaiting the resident’s structural survey appointment. The Code at that time stated that, “a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed”. The landlord therefore failed to provide the resident with a valid reason for its delay, nor act in line with the Code.
The remainder of the landlord’s email to the resident would only have caused her further frustration, and confusion. It appeared to try to extend the date for it to issue her its complaint response, but advised that this would be 12 December 2022, which was the same date as its contact. The landlord also changed terminology with no explanation. It began referring to the structural engineer as an ‘architect’, which the resident expressed her understandable confusion with.
It was also notable that the landlord’s contact with the resident suggested that it was handling her complaint itself, and made no mention of its PFSG. In contrast, the PFSG’s contacts with the resident sometimes referred to either its own, or the resident’s requirement to check matters with the landlord, but stated that it was handling her complaint on the landlord’s behalf.
The landlord has failed to demonstrate that at any point it clearly explained to the resident the role of its PFSG, nor who had overall responsibility for her complaint. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s lack of clarity regarding roles, responsibility, and ownership of the resident’s complaint, was at the very least a contributory factor to the severe maladministration of its complaint handling.
In February 2023 the Service again asked the landlord to provide the resident with its stage 1 complaint response, which the landlord still failed to do. In March 2023 the Service issued the landlord a CHFO, and ordered that it respond to the resident’s formal complaint. The landlord’s noncompliance with the CHFO was confirmed to its CEO on 23 May 2023, and was wholly unreasonable.
The landlord’s PFSG did then email the resident on 26 May 2023, and referred to the Ombudsman’s contact. It provided an update on the resident’s forthcoming structural survey, which it acknowledged that she had waited 8 months for. It further acknowledged that her complaint had been outstanding since October 2022, and offered her £200 compensation for these service failings. The email made no other reference to the resident’s complaint, what stage it was at, nor how she could escalate it. It also failed to offer an explanation as to why the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, and the matters it related to, had been so severely delayed.
The Code at that time stated that the landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident, “must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. The Code further explained that the stage 1 response must confirm in writing the following points:
1. the complaint stage.
2. the complaint definition.
3. the decision on the complaint.
4. the reasons for any decisions made.
5. the details of any remedy offered to put things right.
6. details of any outstanding actions.
7. details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2.
The PFSG’s email to the resident on 26 May 2023 could therefore not be considered a stage 1 response as defined by the Code, and indeed at no point did the landlord provide the resident with anything that constituted a formal complaint response. As such, the landlord’s actions, or lack thereof, were wholly unreasonable.
In July 2023 the resident made her mortgage based compensation proposal to the PFSG. The PFSG said that it had discussed the resident’s proposal with the landlord, but advised that it could not agree to it for the reasons explained above. It advised the resident that the landlord had increased its previous compensation offer to £400, but offered no explanation as to how it had arrived at that figure.
As above, the Ombudsman is unable to determine liability for the difference in cost of the resident’s respective mortgage offers. However, the landlord’s compensation offer was in no way proportionate to the impact of its failings on the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered that the landlord pay the resident £500 for the distress and frustration caused to her by its service failures, £750 for her time and trouble pursuing the matter, and £600 for its poor complaint handling, in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of structural, and drainage issues with her property;
2. associated complaint.

Reasons

There were severe delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported property issues. The resident’s frustration was further compounded by the landlord’s failure over the course of more than a year to keep her informed, respond to her update requests, or otherwise offer explanations for its delays and apparent inaction.
The landlord failed to handle or issue a response to the resident’s complaint in line with either the Code, or its own policy, and was issued a CHFO by the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s handling of both the resident’s complaint, and the issues it related to, appeared fragmented with unclear roles, responsibilities, and an absence of ownership.
The Ombudsman is unable to determine liability for any difference in the cost of the resident’s respective mortgage offers. However, a compensation order has been made that considers the prolonged and undue time, trouble, and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings, and in line with the Remedies Guidance.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks:
1. The landlord’s CEO calls the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord pays the resident £1850 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £500 for her distress and frustration.
  2. £750 for her time and trouble pursuing the matter.
  3. £600 for its poor complaint handling.
3. This amount replaces the landlord’s own compensation award of £400 (if that award was paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the £1850).
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman further orders that within 8 weeks the landlord completes a review of this case to determine what went wrong with its handling of the resident’s complaint, and the related issues (to include establishing clear responsibilities and ownership for future complaint handling, and property issues). The landlord should:
1. Provide the Service with a copy of its review findings.
2. Use the review as a learning resource to ensure that the issues encountered by the resident do not happen again.
The landlord should evidence compliance with this order to the Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.