London Borough of Barnet (202106502)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106502

Barnet Council

18 October 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs following her reports of concerns about structural and related issues at the property.

Background and summary of events

2. The property is a two storey end of terrace house. The resident has a secure tenancy.
3. On 30 March 2021, the resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord that her concerns about the porch of the property subsiding, cracks appearing in the property, the safety of the stairs and repairs needed in the driveway paving were not being attended to.
4. The landlord wrote a stage one complaint response to the resident on 15 April 2021 stating that the only outstanding repair on the property was to the driveway and it would not be renewing the driveway as it was in “sound condition”. It said that it had arranged for a survey to assess any repairs needed in the home.
5. On 15 July 2021 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord which it categorised as a stage one complaint. The resident complained about the condition of the driveway, cracks in the house, unsafe stairs and subsidence of the porch. The resident stated that the landlord was aware of the issues but had not taken action.
6. In its stage one complaint response, sent on 29 July 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints about the paving, the staircase and cracking issues. It stated that an appointment for the staircase planned for 23 June 2021 did not happen because the resident did not confirm the date and another appointment had been scheduled for 2 August 2021. The landlord advised that a survey would be needed to review the structural concerns raised by the resident and asked that she contact it if this was not arranged by 5 August 2021. It said that a structural survey would be needed regarding the cracking issues and it had raised an order for this. Regarding the paving, it noted that there was a small area that needed repair, but said that it was unable to replace the entire area. It stated that it would be partially upholding the complaint.
7. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 October 2021 complaining that she still had not heard about her complaint. It appears that she did not receive the landlord’s complaint response of 29 July 2021. She stated that nothing had been done and asked that the complaint be escalated.
8. The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 27 October 2021. Regarding the structural issues, it stated that there was a structural survey undertaken on 6 May 2021, following which an appointment was made to fill in cracks and install grab rails. A contractor attended on 11 June 2021, but concluded that plastering could not be done as the walls were in bad condition. An order was raised on 28 September 2021 for contractors to attend on 28 October 2021. Regarding the paving, the landlord stated that it had said that it was happy to repair a small area but not to replace the whole area. It asked the resident to contact the relevant person if she had not already done so. Regarding the porch, the landlord said that it could not find any orders about this so had raised a new order for a structural survey, which the resident would be contacted about directly. This survey would then be reviewed by the landlord and appropriate steps taken. The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in attending to the repairs and failed to keep in regular contact with the resident. It had failed to respond to queries despite being chased on a number of occasions. It apologised but referred to the impact that the COVID pandemic had on its repairs service. It stated that it did take full responsibility, and it fully upheld the resident’s complaint.
9. The resident replied to the landlord on 27 October 2021. She stated that the matter had had a massive impact on her health and she was not happy with the landlord’s proposed step to resolve the issues.
10. In an internal email on 28 October 2021 the landlord acknowledged the failings and that matters now needed to be “put right”.
11. A structural survey was undertaken on 3 November 2021. It concluded that there were problems with the porch and the main building and recommended a number of steps.
12. The structural survey was provided to the landlord on 26 November 2021.
13. In an internal email on 30 November 2021 the landlord stated that it had determined after investigations that the porch had added by a previous tenant and it had “inherited an unauthorised porch”. It noted the result of the structural survey and that the foundations may need to be rebuilt. Regarding the main house, it noted that there was subsidence and a large oak tree was likely to be the main cause. Further steps were needed to investigate both. It noted the numerous recommendations made in the survey.
14. The landlord advised this Service on 6 October 2022 that there were some outstanding works which had been booked in and agreed with the resident to complete within the next two weeks. The resident did not indicate that she was unhappy with this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of complaint

15. The Ombudsman notes that in her email to this Service on 31 January 2022, the resident referred to repairs needed to the driveway, “all the windows which need replacing”, cracks in the house, cutting down trees, unblocking the sink and repairing floorboards.
16. Before the Ombudsman can consider a complaint, it must go through the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. The evidence indicates that the resident’s complaint about the driveway paving, the cracking, the tree (including its relevance to the subsidence issue) and the floorboards (also relevant to the subsidence) have been considered through the complaints process and can therefore be considered by the Ombudsman. However, the resident’s points about windows and the sink unblocking do not appear to have been a part of the complaint that was taken through the landlord’s complaint process. The windows and sink will therefore not be considered by the Ombudsman in this Determination. However, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to establish whether there are issues with the windows and sink that need to be addressed.

Repair works

17. The landlord has a statutory duty to undertake repairs and maintain the property. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy acknowledges that it is “required by law to maintain the properties it manages in good repair”. For repairs that are not an emergency, the landlord commits to attend to within 15 days.  Where a “pre-inspection” is required works should be completed within 25 working days inclusive of the inspection. For larger and more complex works the applicable timeframe is 60 days. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to communicate with the resident in a reasonable manner about all repair reports.
18. The Ombudsman recognises that on some occasions, depending on the nature of the repair and the extent of the works required, the appropriate timescales must be considered in the context of what is reasonable in the particular circumstances. For example, regarding the structural issues in this matter for which a soil investigation was one of the recommended interventions – the Ombudsman would appreciate that this may take longer than more straightforward issues.
19. In this case the landlord has acknowledged that there were failings in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed.
20. The records provided to the Ombudsman start from 11 November 2020, although it appears that there were communications before that about the resident’s concerns. The notes only refer to the driveway/paving until 11 June 2021 when concerns about subsidence in the property are noted. However, it is evident from the notes that these other issues had also been ongoing for some time before June.
21. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord initially failed to respond in a timely and reasonable manner to the resident’s reports of problems with the property. Whilst there were some visits to the property in May and June 2021, it is clear that these did not adequately address the issues and a full survey was needed. The notes show that a surveyor attended the property in early June 2021, however the resident was still chasing the landlord for a response and action on 13 October 2021. Some relatively minor works on the stairs were undertaken on 2 August 2021.The full survey that was needed was not conducted until 3 November 2021 – the Ombudsman considers there was an unreasonable delay in undertaking the survey. The Ombudsman considers that these failings caused the resident notable distress and inconvenience and the landlord should pay compensation for that, which is considered below.
22. From November 2021 onwards, it does appear that the landlord engaged more fully with the issues. The repair notes suggest that by January 2022 the only further work that had been done was more extensive works on the staircase. However, the records show that the landlord did attempt to undertake these works at an earlier date but the resident requested that they be rescheduled. The survey recommended a number of repairs, some of which (for example, a soil investigation) one would reasonably expect to take some time. However, some of the recommendations (such as repairing hairline cracks) could be reasonably expected to be undertaken within a shorter timeframe. It appears that the required works are now close to being completed. Given that some of the works were significant, , the Ombudsman is satisfied that after the initial failings, the landlord has been reasonable in the completion of the repairs, with the possible exception of the driveway.
23. There has been a specific dispute between the parties about the replacement of the driveway paving. The resident’s position is that it needs to be fully replaced. However, the landlord’s position has been that it would only repair a small area and not replace the full paving area. The structural survey from November 2021 records regarding the paving – “right hand corner masonry slipping off the DPC. Crazy pavement uneven, hazardous.” It does not make a specific recommendation regarding the driveway. It is not clear if that is because the technical opinion was that a driveway replacement was not needed, or if the instructions to the surveyor did not include making recommendations on the driveway. The landlord’s position in the evidence is that it will not change the full driveway.
24. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to make technical assessments as it is not within our remit or expertise to do so. However, the note from the survey indicates that there is a potential safety risk due to the type of paving used for the whole driveway. If the material used for the driveway posed a safety risk, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to replace it with a safer material. It is not clear from the evidence that the landlord turned its mind to a proper safety assessment of the driveway and made a reasonable decision, taking into account a proper safety assessment, not to replace the driveway. It is unclear if the resident continues to have concerns about the safety of the driveway. The Ombudsman requires the landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination, to confirm whether she still has concerns about the safety of the driveway. If the resident does still have concerns, the Ombudsman requires that the landlord undertake a specific safety assessment of the driveway and take appropriate steps where safety issues are identified.

Compensation

25. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
26. In this case, the resident has stated that the delays in attending to her repair reports, particularly during the period when she was pregnant in 2021, have caused her significant distress and inconvenience. The repair concerns were significant and the resident was understandably concerned for the landlord to address the concerns she had raised as her pregnancy progressed. Whilst the landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of the works in question, its complaint responses did not consider whether it should offer compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience it caused. There was therefore a missed opportunity for the landlord to put matters right. In the circumstances, taking into account that there were repeated failings by the landlord to address the issues over a lengthy period of time, the Ombudsman requires the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation.

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there have been maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs.

Reasons

28. The landlord initially failed to respond in a timely and reasonable manner to the resident’s reports of problems with the property.
29. It is not clear from the evidence that the landlord turned its mind to a proper safety assessment of the driveway and made a reasonable decision, taking into account a proper safety assessment, not to replace the driveway.

Orders and recommendations

30. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident £500 compensation within four weeks of the date of this Determination.
31. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination, to confirm whether she still has concerns about the safety of the driveway. If the resident does still have concerns, the Ombudsman requires that the landlord undertake a specific safety assessment of the driveway and take appropriate steps where safety issues are identified.
32. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to establish whether there are issues with the windows and sink that need to be addressed