From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Islington (202219634)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219634

Islington Council

28 February 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of structural movement to the property’s extension;
    2. Response to the resident’s report of a flood;
    3. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident’s secure tenancy began in 2014. The property is a ground floor flat in a mid-terrace building. It has a garden and a basement. Its 2 bedrooms are located in a 2 storey extension to the rear. The landlord is a local authority. Until April 2022, a managing agent ran the property on the landlord’s behalf. This arrangement was part of a private finance initiative intended to improve the quality of the landlord’s converted housing stock. The resident occupies the property with her 2 children.
  2. The tenancy terms confirm the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes external walls, roofs, drains and gutters. The resident is responsible for repairing and maintaining the property’s interior. This includes internal decorations and finishes. The landlord’s separate repairs guide confirms it is responsible for addressing any damp issues caused by leaks or water penetration.
  3. The repairs guide details the landlord’s approach to various repairs. It includes response timescales for different categories of repair. It confirms “planned” (high-value) repairs should be completed within 60 working days. It shows, in the event of a flood, the landlord will restore the property to a liveable condition. Severe flooding situations may prompt it to decant a resident temporarily. If a flood involves foul water or sewage, the landlord will disinfect the affected flooring and apply deodoriser where possible.
  4. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure, effective June 2017, governed its approach to these issues for most of the timeline below. It shows, on receiving a report of damp or mould, the landlord must check for leaks or water penetration issues in the first instance. Further, condensation will not be considered a contributing factor until “thorough checks” have ruled out these issues.
  5. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its relevant complaints policy, updated February 2017, shows it aimed to respond to complaints within 21 calendar days (excluding bank holidays). At stage 2, (a review by the Chief Executive), it aimed to respond within 28 calendar days. The policy allowed the landlord to consider any new evidence as part of a further review at stage 1. The landlord’s response timescales were reduced by a policy update in March 2023.
  6. The landlord provided the resident’s weekly rent figures for each year between 2017 and 2024. The landlord’s information confirms the rent was £140.34 and £175.92 in 2017 and 2024 respectively. From the landlord’s information, the Ombudsman calculated the resident’s average weekly rent as £156.35. We then multiplied this figure by 52 to estimate her average annual rent. The calculated figure was £8,130.05. By dividing this number by 12, the Ombudsman calculated the resident’s average monthly rent at £677.50.

Summary of events

  1. In March 2017, a structural engineer reported their findings from a previous visit to the building in 2016. Their report confirms that, during this visit, they observed a structural defect from a window above the garden. Specifically, the report said there was a crack between the main building and the property’s extension. Further, the crack was widest at “parapet level” but it extended down to the ground. It also noted a large tree in the garden. The key points were:
    1. There appeared to be severe movement to the extension. This movement should be evident from inside the property. Tree root related subsidence was the likely cause.
    2. Soil and drain surveys were recommended to confirm the cause. Monitoring should also take place over 12 months for insurance purposes. A tree specialist should be consulted.
  2. The property’s repair history suggests the resident reported large cracks to the extension’s hallway ceiling in late May 2017. Repair records show crack filling and plastering works were completed on 15 June 2017. On this date, a repair order was raised for redecoration works. These works included stain blocking above the stairs. The records suggest they were completed within 1 month.
  3. On 30 June 2017 a separate repair order was raised to address damp in the property. The corresponding record shows an inspection was completed on 11 July 2017. The repair notes said, “No damp present. Just condensation and mould”. Subsequent records show the landlord was unable to gain access to the property for mould treatment works on 27 July 2017.
  4. Further records show mould washing works were ultimately completed on 13 October 2017. The repair notes said email contact from the resident prompted the landlord to raise an new repair order on 20 September 2017. Following these works, the repair history did not reference mould again until June 2020. This suggests there were no further reports from the resident during the interim period.
  5. A specialist’s report shows the managing agent undertook ground investigation works in January 2018. The report detailed the results from a completed soil analysis. It shows samples were taken from boreholes around the exterior of the property. It suggests decking prevented a borehole being placed close to the crack that was reported in 2017. There was a significant gap in the evidence following this report.
  6. On 23 October 2018, the resident chased the managing agent’s repairs team. She reported a lack of contact from various parties including surveyors. She was unhappy she was not given the results of a survey in August 2018, or the findings from the previous soil analysis. She said she was “now demanding action”. Further, “it (was) hilarious” that she was being blamed for access issues since she was always at the property with her phone. She also said cracks in the walls were allowing pests into the property.
  7. The repairs team replied the following day. It thanked the resident for confirming that the external decking would be removed to allow investigation works. It said outstanding CCTV drainage, and soil investigation surveys had been arranged. It also said, once the investigation works were complete, a structural surveyor would complete a final report. This would allow the managing agent to determine whether the movement had stabilised.
  8. The resident chased the repairs team again later that month. Subsequently, the parties exchanged emails about the CCTV drain survey. During an update on 30 October 2018, the resident said a drain specialist had identified a cracked gulley. However, she felt there might be other issues causing the structural movement. She said a surveyor had mentioned the tree in January 2018. She asked for a copy of the corresponding survey report.
  9. In an update on 8 November 2018, the resident reported that the extension had “completely separated from the main house”. She said the situation was scary and she was unsure if the property was fit for habitation. In addition, the cracks were moving “extremely quickly”. She wanted her case handler to escalate the case to senior colleagues. Within days, the resident reported the family’s sleeping arrangements were impacted and water had “poured through the wall” during recent bad weather.
  10. On 12 November 2018 the resident made a formal complaint. She said large cracks had appeared to the extension over the last 12 months. In addition, the problems were evident from its internal staircase. For example, daylight was now visible and debris was falling from the ceiling daily. Further, despite 2 surveyor’s visits, no further action had been taken and there was a lack of communication. Her other key points were:
    1. The family were frightened and desperate. They were anxious the ceiling would collapse. The resident had stayed with close family members and her son was sleeping in the property’s living room.
    2. Urgent help was needed. The situation should have been treated as an emergency. The landlord should provide a safe place for the family to sleep while it completed an urgent inspection.
  11. An emergency repair order was raised on the same day. Corresponding records said the ceiling should be made safe, and a structural engineer should inspect the property. The order was marked complete several hours later. However, the record suggests the visit exceeded the landlord’s emergency response timescale. The managing agent acknowledged the resident’s complaint the next day. The acknowledgement said it aimed to respond to her concerns by 3 December 2018.
  12. The structural engineer’s report was dated 15 November 2018. It said only minor cracks were noted to the property’s bedroom ceilings. In contrast, more significant damage was noted to corridors on both floors of the extension. For example, it was noted debris had fallen through a large crack leading up the stairs. It was also noted a “thick mortar joint” had recently been applied to the external junction between the extension and the main building. The engineer’s recommendations broadly mirrored the actions recommended in March 2017. The new points were:
    1. Since the previous summer was “very dry”, it was likely the damage would increase in the coming months.
    2. Given the “significant movement along the party wall…”, the landlord should establish if the neighbour had made an insurance claim and whether they had completed any investigation works.
    3. The roof flashing should be renewed between the extension and the main building to make the junction watertight. This should be treated as an emergency repair.
    4. It would be best to appoint a tree specialist when the result of the recommended soil testing was known.
  13. The engineer issued updated recommendations on 3 December 2018. The corresponding report shows they had seen the results from the soil investigation in January 2018, and of a recent drain survey. The report noted no monitoring or tree root analysis had been carried out at the property. In addition, soil samples were sent in unsealed bags, which could impact the lab’s test results. It said this matter should be pursued with the relevant contractor. Other new points were:
    1. There was “extensive” damage to the property with movement up to 10mm along the party wall. It was likely the movement was caused by “desiccation” in the clay soil below the extension’s foundation. Underpinning with concrete was an appropriate solution.
    2. Drains below the property were in poor condition and likely to be leaking. They should be repaired in line with the recommendations in the drainage report. Nevertheless, they were not in the vicinity of the main structural movement.
    3. Underpinning could provide an immediate solution to stabilise the property. This approach was also considered the best long-term option. In the event of a claim, an insurer “may favour tree removal in the first instance followed by monitoring”.
    4. A tree specialist should be appointed to advise on removal. However, it was unlikely this approach would achieve stability in the short-term and movement could be ongoing for some time.
  14. The managing agent issued a stage 1 response on the same day. It said a team leader had been updating the resident about the progress of the repairs. Further, they were coordinating the managing agent’s response with various parties including surveyors and an insurer. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. This was on the basis there was no evidence of any service failures. The response detailed the resident’s escalation rights. Other key points were:
    1. Repair operatives attended the property on 15 November 2018. They found works were needed to the roof flashing and the area needed to be made watertight. These works were completed on 21 November 2018.
    2. The landlord was sorry that drainage works were postponed due to illness. The works were ultimately completed on 20 November 2018. A final drainage report had been requested.
    3. Since the drainage works were complete, a final structural report had also been requested. This would indicate the necessary repairs. “Site investigations, drainage works, tree works, and monitoring should all be completed before” the managing agent could progress the repairs.
    4. The resident had raised further issues around mouse infestation. Arrangements were being made to fill and cover cracks in the property. This would allow the managing agent to deal with the infestation. It would liaise with the local authority’s pest control team when these works were complete.
  15. The resident also replied on 3 December 2018. Broadly, she said there was incorrect information in the stage 1 response (around a supervisor visit), along with an overall lack of: contact, progress, and oversight. In addition, she had spent time liaising with and chasing various parties. The resident reiterated debris was falling daily and she said the building was hazardous. She also referenced food waste on the property’s roof. Though she was clearly unhappy, the resident did not ask the managing agent to escalate her complaint.
  16. On 12 December 2018 the managing agent issued a further response at stage 1. It responded to each of the concerns in the resident’s previous reply. It said there was no evidence the property was unfit for habitation. In addition, since there was no evidence of service failure, there was no reason to change the previous complaint outcome. The managing agent reiterated the resident could escalate the complaint to stage 2 if she remained unhappy. Its new points were:
    1. It now understood that a roofing supervisor did not attend the property. Nevertheless, the roof was made water tight as arranged.
    2. The resident’s case handler previously advised her they were waiting for an update about the reported food waste on the roof. They would contact the resident in due course.
    3. The landlord attended the property to fill cracks on 6 December 2018. However, it was unable to gain access for the works. The resident should rearrange a convenient appointment as soon as possible.
    4. In relation to the cracks, various stages of works and investigations needed to be completed before the structural engineer’s final recommendations could be implemented. The resident had been updated accordingly.
    5. The managing agent understood the local authority was supposed to reduce “the crown” of a nearby tree by 30% in October 2017. The managing agent had contacted the local authority for an update.
    6. The managing agent wrote to the resident in early December 2017. It asked her to remove a portion of the decking because it was covering manholes needed to complete a drain survey. It said she should agree a convenient survey date by 11 December 2017.
    7. Subsequently, a drainage contractor attended the property in late January 2018. However, it was unable to complete a survey because the decking was still in place. On 5 February 2018, it notified the managing agent about the difficulty it was experiencing in completing the survey.
    8. The managing agent did not know the details of the resident’s interactions with the local authority’s Environmental Health (EH) team. Given it was the council’s responsibility, EH was outside of the managing agent’s remit.
  17. There was a significant gap in the evidence following the additional stage 1 response. No information was seen to show the resident subsequently asked the managing agent to escalate her complaint. She later told us EH declined to get involved in her case.
  18. The landlord exchanged emails with the managing agent on 28 June 2019. It said the resident had reported structural subsidence and a rat infestation. It asked if the agent would authorise a major works transfer (rehousing). The agent replied this would only be authorised if it was confirmed major works were required, and they could not be completed with the resident in situ. There was another significant gap in the evidence following this exchange.
  19. Repair records from 3 July 2020 show the landlord attended the property to assess a reported leak. The repair notes said there were no leaks coming from the main water pipe in the basement. However, there was a lot of personal belongings in the basement which were “causing mould…causing sweat and causing leak to the floor”. There was another significant gap in the evidence at this point. The repair history did not reference mould again until 2023.
  20. In late February 2022 a surveyor updated the resident following an inspection. They said the property needed underpinning but the works would not be delivered by the managing agent. This was on the basis it would revert back to the landlord’s direct control after 31 March 2022. The surveyor said they would prepare a schedule of works and pass their recommendations to the landlord.
  21. Around 2 months later, the resident chased the landlord. She said she knew it had resumed direct management of the property, and that information about the required repairs was handed over. However, there had been no contact from the landlord and the situation was urgent. She stressed investigations had been ongoing for 4 years. She felt the property was “beyond disrepair”. There was a further gap in the evidence at this point.
  22. The landlord’s insurance team emailed the resident on 13 October 2022. It said it had been trying to contact her to arrange an inspection by a building consultant. In a subsequent email exchange, the resident confirmed a surveyor had completed an “8 weekly measure of the wall pins” earlier that day. However, she was disappointed to discover that surveys completed over the previous 3 years “were of no use to (the landlord) and (they) needed repeating”. She also said the basement had flooded causing a foul smell in the property.
  23. On 15 November 2022 the resident raised a second formal complaint. She said, over 4 years subsidence had caused: leaks, cracks, pests, broken doors and now a flood in the basement. Further, she reported “huge flooding” to the basement on 7 November 2022. However, there had been a lack of communication after the landlord agreed to remove the water. In addition, she had spent considerable time chasing the landlord. The resident’s other key points were:
    1. Given the recent weather, the flooding would only get worse. The smell of damp was making the resident and her young daughter sick. A surveyor’s report from February 2022 recommended an urgent move for the family.
    2. The landlord was now undertaking further investigation works. This was causing the family additional “health problems and anxiety”. The resident understood these works could take another 18 months.
    3. The resident’s complaint should be investigated at a high level. The property’s ongoing disrepair needed urgent attention. Previously, the resident’s daughter received emergency medical treatment after swallowing rat poison.
  24. A week later, a surveyor relayed their inspection findings to the landlord. They felt it was unlikely that the flood was linked to structural movement. However, they could not be certain given the low visibility in the basement. They said the basement contained “approx.1.5ft of stagnant water and (was) producing almost noxious smells that (were not consistent with) a healthy living environment…”. Further, specialist breathing equipment was likely needed to gain access to the basement given the confined space. Other key points were:
    1. Urgent action was need to remove the “pungent” smelling flood water, which was a health and safety concern. It was unclear if the flood was a one-off event or a reoccurring problem.
    2. Cracking had been repaired along the line of the rear extension. Existing inspection reports referred to drains and trees, but the soil and root analysis was “a little inconclusive”. The operative would review the previous reports further.
  25. On 23 November 2022 an arborist (tree specialist) recommended felling 2 trees near the property (whitebeam and plum). Their report also said the landlord should treat the stumps.
  26. Within days, the resident chased the landlord for an update. She said the foul smelling flood water was an emergency. Further, she had been off work and unable to attend university for a week due to a “high fever and persistent throat infection”’. She felt conditions in the property were impacting the family’s health. She insisted the landlord should move them immediately if it did not intend to address the issue. Her email included a supporting video attachment. It showed flood water just across the hallway from a downstairs bedroom.
  27. On 29 November 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. This was 10 working days after the resident’s second complaint. It said the landlord’s investigation was limited to issues that occurred in the last 12 months. As a result, it only addressed events that occurred after the landlord resumed direct control of the property. The landlord said its service did not meet its required standards. Nevertheless, the resident’s complaint was not upheld. This was on the basis no service failures were identified. Other key points were:
    1. From April 2022, the landlord tried to contact the resident multiple times by phone and letter. It eventually made contact about the subsidence in November 2022. Soon afterwards, the landlord raised a related claim with its insurer.
    2. On 21 November 2022 a surveyor reported a drainage survey was required and stagnant water should be pumped out of the basement. A contractor attended on 29 November 2022 and a report would be provided to the landlord’s insurance team.
    3. The report would form part of the landlord’s assessment of the subsidence issue. If any personal belongings were damaged by the flood, the resident should contact her contents insurer. If she did not have insurance, she could contact the landlord on a number provided.
  28. The resident updated the Ombudsman by email on the same day. She said a CCTV survey had not been completed. She also said the flood water had not been pumped out of the basement and the smell was “unbearable”. The Ombudsman has seen medical evidence from around this time. It shows the resident was deemed unfit to work due to a chest infection.
  29. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 29 December 2022. Her correspondence referenced disrepair and unsuitable living conditions. Broadly, she disputed the landlord’s assertion that it had tried to contact her from April 2022. She also said its response contained incorrect information about the date of the flood contractor’s visit (the landlord’s repair records confirm the water was removed on 30 November 2022). Her other new points were:
    1. The managing agent completed the necessary structural investigations in February 2022. Nevertheless, there were still “enormous cracks” in ceilings, walls and door frames.
    2. Rainwater was still leaking into the basement and the smell was ongoing. This was causing damp and humidity in the property.
    3. There were still pests at the property. Rats and mice had been spotted. When entering rooms, the family made loud noises to scare them away.
    4. The family’s mental and physical health had been impacted over 5 years. The children looked forward to staying with relatives. The family were unable to host visitors due to the property’s condition.
    5. The landlord should explain why the previous investigations were inadequate. It should also begin repairs immediately. Otherwise, it should urgently rehouse the family.
    6. The landlord should confirm it received the resident’s request. The resident preferred email contact because there was no reception at the property. It should leave a voicemail if it was unable to get through,
  30. On 17 March 2023 the Ombudsman chased the landlord on the resident’s behalf. We said it should respond at stage 2 by 14 April 2023. The landlord later told us it needed additional investigation time.
  31. The landlord completed a damp inspection 2 weeks later. It identified a band of mould along a bedroom wall. The inspection report referenced surface condensation due to environmental conditions internally. It recommended mould treatment works and a discussion about the possibility of installing thermal boarding. It broadly referenced lifestyle factors. It said: there was poor ventilation of the room, items were placed too close to the wall, kitchen and bathroom doors were left open, the property was inadequately heated, and there was a lack of household maintenance which allowed mould to spread.
  32. During internal correspondence around 13 April 2023, the landlord asked why it had taken over 4 years for the subsidence to be addressed. It subsequently said it felt the flooding and subsidence were separate issues and the flood was more serious. Further, a building consultant was “not worried” about the structural cracks, which were “an aesthetic issue”. It also said the subsidence was not an imminent threat and did not warrant a permanent transfer. However, a nearby cherry tree was the likely cause and it needed to be removed.
  33. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 21 April 2023. This was around 4 months after the resident’s escalation request. The landlord recognised its stage 2 response was delayed. It awarded the resident £100 in related compensation. The response addressed delayed repair actions and outstanding repairs. It acknowledged repairs were outstanding since 2017. The resident’s complaint was upheld. Other key points were:
    1. The landlord could see the resident raised damp, mould, and subsidence issues in 2017. From its repair records, it was apparent the issues were ongoing since then. The matters had not been adequately addressed by the managing agent.
    2. The landlord did not have sufficient information “available to challenge” the managing agent’s actions. On that basis, it accepted responsibility for the overall timeline.
    3. Due to an administration issue, the drainage appointment in November 2022 was delayed by a day. The landlord was sorry this was not communicated to the resident. It was also sorry for its case handling from 2017 onwards.
    4. The property was inspected on 17 November 2022. It was not deemed uninhabitable at this point. Subsequently, works orders were raised to address flood water and drainage issues.
    5. In relation to the subsidence, a building consultant was waiting for sufficient information to make a final decision on the necessary repairs. The landlord was unable to provide further information at this point.
    6. A damp inspection was completed in March 2023. Though corresponding repair works were issued, the landlord’s repairs team had been unable to contact the resident to schedule the works.
    7. A member of the landlord’s leadership team would contact the resident about these repairs in due course. The resident could also contact the landlord’s repairs team using the details provided.
    8. The overall repairs would be monitored by the repairs team and a senior repairs leader until completion. The resident was awarded £3,000 in compensation to recognise the distress caused by the delays. This brought the total compensation to £3,100.
  34. Repair records show the landlord installed thermal boarding to the bedroom wall on 6 June 2023. This was around 10 weeks after the landlord’s damp inspection. They also suggest the landlord may have completed mould treatment works around the same time. However, there was some conflicting information in the repair notes. The records referenced access issues and said the landlord held an incorrect phone number for the resident.
  35. The parties’ records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 23 June and 29 December 2023:
    1. A contractor’s repair schedule detailed a list of works to address the subsidence. The list confirmed extensive works were required.
    2. A separate contractor’s report from the following month shows crack monitoring was ongoing. It said a crack had been removed “due to being decorated over”.
    3. Around this time, the resident completed a change of circumstances form. The form was related to a request for rehousing. Soon afterwards, she chased the landlord for an update on the repairs.
    4. In mid-August 2023, the landlord requested an inspection to determine if the family needed to be decanted to complete the specified repairs. Later that month, the resident asked the landlord to communicate by email. She reiterated there was no phone reception in the property.
    5. On 8 September 2023, the resident chased the landlord again. She said it did not reply to her previous email and “(she was) not up to date with anything happening at this property”. Further, subsidence investigation works concluded in July 2023. However, the landlord had not shared its findings or a timeframe for the repairs.
    6. Around a week later, the resident asked the landlord for a management transfer. She subsequently made a number of requests for repairs information between late September and mid-October 2023.
    7. On 1 December 2023, the landlord told the resident its contractor had been unable to contact her to schedule the repairs. It asked if it could forward her email address because the resident’s “phones do not connect”.
    8. The resident chased the landlord for an update later that month. It replied the family would be decanted to a hotel for the duration of the repairs. It said it would confirm a start date and book the hotel by early January 2024.
  36. On 4 January 2024 the parties agreed a start date for the works. The resident chased the landlord for an update 4 days later. The landlord replied the repairs had been placed on hold because a neighbour had challenged a “party wall agreement”. It said the works involved “stitching” and the landlord was legally obliged to reach an agreement with the owner of the neighbouring property. However, it would update the resident in due course.
  37. In response, the resident said the landlord was making her ill. Further, she “put her work life on standstill” and cancelled meetings to facilitate the decant. In addition, she spent the weekend packing the family’s belongings. She said their lives were on hold for 7 years and the situation was unfair. She noted she was only aware of the delay because she had chased the landlord. Subsequently, the resident chased the landlord a number of times over the following weeks.
  38. The repair history suggests the resident reported mould in the second bedroom on 10 January 2024. Corresponding repair notes said 3 stage mould works were completed to the bedroom and no other areas were affected. The records suggest the works were completed on 16 January 2024.
  39. The resident updated the Ombudsman on 9 February 2024. She provided an overview of the complaint from 2017 onwards. She said mould treatment works were completed to the property’s main bedroom. However, damp and mould was ongoing in the second bedroom. She also said the family wanted to move.
  40. In early 2024, the landlord provided its case evidence to the Ombudsman. It included a cover note with a summary of the landlord’s stance on the case. It said party wall issues had caused a delay. However, the resident had been kept fully updated about the progress of the repairs. Further, the landlord would notify the interested parties when an agreement was reached. It also said an agreement was necessary because the works involved cutting into the wall. Other new points were:
    1. After the repairs were scheduled and temporary accommodation was arranged, the insurer had advised additional monitoring was needed to confirm the subsidence had stabilised.
    2. Ongoing monitoring was in place. The landlord understood this monitoring was hindered due to false walls being erected. An upcoming inspection would clarify the situation.
    3. The resident was updated by email on 10 occasions. Contact was especially frequent between December 2023 and January 2024. The landlord intended to maintain transparent and consistent communication throughout the repair process.
  41. The resident updated us during a call on 22 February 2024. She said the subsidence was ongoing but the landlord had not kept her updated about the latest developments. She also said the basement had flooded on 2 further occasions and the family no longer used it. In addition, her son’s bedroom was frequently impacted by leaks and damp. The resident’s other main points were:
    1. The landlord pumped the flood water out of the basement and completed a CCTV drain survey. It did not: carry out any post-flood cleaning, complete any repairs to the basement, or share the CCTV survey results.
    2. The landlord told the resident the property was habitable a number of times. Nevertheless, it did not explain its underlying rationale. There had been no detailed discussions between the resident and the landlord’s surveyors.
    3. The property’s condition had impacted the resident’s family life. She was told not to redecorate due to the movement. The family were unable to host playdates, birthday celebrations, or have a normal Christmas at home.
    4. The resident’s daughter was an infant when the problems began. This exacerbated the resident’s safety concerns. Members of the resident’s extended family asked her to move in with them due to concerns about the property.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or loss of earnings.

The landlord’s handling of structural movement to the property’s extension

  1. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted it was responsible for delayed repairs from 2017. It awarded the resident £3,000 to address the associated distress and inconvenience. The timeline supports the landlord’s rationale. It shows recommended actions were not completed promptly and monitoring was repeated. The evidence suggests the landlord failed to manage the timeline and there was a lack of oversight in relation to the managing agent. Ultimately, the landlord correctly recognised that significant compensation was warranted.
  2. Nevertheless, the subsidence is ongoing and the basis of the landlord’s compensation calculation was unclear. As a result, we examined the landlord’s overall handling and its compensation award. This was to address matters accordingly for the resident and identify any relevant learnings for the landlord. Broadly, the evidence suggests the resident was also impacted by similar failures that occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 response on 21 April 2023. As a result, the landlord’s compensation award did not cover the full delay timeline.
  3. For example, in November 2018 a structural engineer recommended contacting the neighbour about the significant movement along the party wall. They said the landlord should establish if the neighbour had raised an insurance claim or completed any of their own investigations. Nevertheless, a challenge from the neighbour halted the landlord’s repairs in early January 2024. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was avoidable given the engineer’s recommendation. In addition, the nature of the repairs required coordination with the neighbour.
  4. Given the above, the evidence points to total delays of around 83 months based on the period between March 2017 and February 2024. This is because the initial structural defect was first noted during an inspection in 2016. During the above identified period, it is accepted issues arose that were beyond the landlord’s control. For example, the landlord referenced delays caused by the resident. There was some evidence to support this assertion. However, the landlord should have been reasonably capable of managing the situation.
  5. For example, if it was unable to contact her by other means, the landlord could have written to the resident about the repairs. Alternatively, it could have agreed a method of contact. Similarly, it could have offered to help her remove the decking to facilitate inspections. It was also noted that the COVID-19 pandemic occurred during the timeline. The landlord did not raise this as a mitigating factor. Nevertheless, the timeline suggests there was sufficient time to complete the necessary repairs prior to lockdown restrictions in March 2020.
  6. No information was seen to show the property was deemed unhabitable due to the subsidence. For example, the Ombudsman has seen various inspection reports but they did not highlight any clear safety concerns. Further, it was noted the landlord completed various responsive repairs to address subsidence related issues as they occurred. This included works to address the roof leak in November 2018. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests the resident’s enjoyment of the property was considerably reduced during the overall delay period.
  7. For example, her correspondence with the landlord confirms the situation was a source of anxiety for the resident. At various points, she said: the family were frightened and desperate, the building was hazardous, and the property was “beyond disrepair”. She chased the repairs numerous times during the timeline. Engineer’s reports referred to significant and extensive damage to corridors and stairways. Images seen by the Ombudsman support these descriptions. In addition, the evidence suggests she had limited respite from the problem.
  8. The information seen suggests damage was visible in various locations around the property. In addition, the landlord acknowledged it was a contributory factor in relation to other issues encountered by the resident. For example, in its stage 1 response the managing agent said filling and covering cracks around the property would allow it to deal with a rodent infestation. Similarly, it is reasonable to conclude the above referenced roof leak may not have occurred if the subsidence had been addressed in reasonable time.
  9. Given the circumstances, the resident cannot fairly be expected to pay her full rent during the above identified delay period (almost 7 years). As a result, the Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our calculation will comprise a rent reduction element to reflect her loss of enjoyment/amenity, along with a separate award to address the resulting distress and inconvenience. The rent reduction element will be broadly equivalent to a 10% rent refund.
  10. The distress and inconvenience element will address the other impacts that arose from the landlord’s failures. Significantly, this includes the resulting emotional impact to the resident. However, as mentioned, she often chased the landlord for updates. Further, the resident has said she recently spent time packing to prepare for a decant. The timeline shows this decant was ultimately cancelled at short notice. In addition, it is reasonable to conclude that facilitating repeated monitoring inspections was inconvenient for the resident.
  11. In summary, the landlord correctly awarded the resident a significant amount of related compensation. While its award was welcome, the subsidence remains ongoing due to similar failures. Further, the compensation did not reflect the full delay timeline, the resident’s loss of enjoyment, or her resulting distress and inconvenience. As a result, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. This is a proportionate finding given the landlord made a significant attempt to put things right during its internal complaints process.
  12. In terms of learnings for the landlord, the overall duration of the timeline points to an inappropriate lack of resolution focus. Whilst the repairs were complex, the landlord failed to control the timeline. In addition, its approach could have been more resident focussed. For example, there was no evidence to show the landlord clearly explained why it felt the property was safe for the family. As noted, safety concerns were a source of considerable anxiety for the resident, who has consistently said the landlord did not keep her updated or share information.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould

  1. The wording of its stage 2 response suggests the landlord accepted there ongoing damp and mould problems at the property from 2017 onwards. However, the response did not clearly explain the landlord’s rationale. We thought carefully about the parties’ evidence. Nevertheless, from the information seen, there was little evidence to support continuous damp and mould problems from this point. For example, they were not mentioned in the resident’s 2018 complaint or the subsequent engineer’s report.
  2. Similarly, damp and mould issues did not clearly feature in the resident’s second complaint. There was also no evidence to suggest she made continuous reports about these matters during the timeline. Still, the evidence suggests there were problems with the landlord’s overall handling of these issues. For example, repair records from July 2022 said personal belongings in the basement were causing various issues including mould. However, no information was seen to show how the landlord dealt with this issue.
  3. For example, the repair history did not record the landlord’s response. Nor was any information seen to show the landlord subsequently completed a follow up inspection. Reinspection (ongoing monitoring) is a procedural requirement in the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Even if it asked the resident to remove her items, the landlord should have checked on the potential hazard it identified at a later stage. Given the above, the evidence points to either a monitoring or record keeping failure.
  4. The evidence points to similar issues during the 2023 damp inspection. For example, the landlord’s inspection record only referred to conditions in the resident’s bedroom. It therefore failed to capture the property’s overall condition in relation to damp and mould. If no damp or mould was identified elsewhere then the report should have said so. As a result, the record was not a dependable source of evidence. The timeline also shows the inspection was subject to an unreasonable delay of around 2 months following the resident’s escalation request. This was inappropriate given the circumstances.
  5. Some inconsistency was also noted between the tone of the inspection report and the approach in the landlord’s damp and mould procedure. Specifically, the procedure shows the landlord should not blame lifestyle factors without thoroughly checking for leaks or water penetration issues. Though the basement flooded several months beforehand, the flood was not referenced in the damp report. However, the evidence suggests the landlord did not ultimately blame the resident’s lifestyle. For example, it eventually completed improvement works to install thermal boarding.
  6. The timeline suggests these works were also subject to an unreasonable delay of around 1 month. For clarity, the Ombudsman considers 1 month a reasonable timescale to complete routine repairs and inspections. With regards to the rest of the timeline, no additional damp or mould related failures were noted. Broadly, the repair records suggest the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports. This included a recent report in January 2024.
  7. In relation to leaks, the repair history shows the landlord did not comply with its emergency repair timescale (2 hours) on 12 November 2018. It is reasonable to conclude this caused the resident some inconvenience. The landlord was not obliged to repair the roof within this timescale. It was obliged to make the situation safe, if possible, or arrange follow up appointments to complete the repairs. Given the nature of the repairs, the timeline shows the property was inspected and made water tight within a reasonable period afterwards.
  8. In summary, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The resident was impacted by related delays of around 3 months in total. In addition, there were a number of record keeping or monitoring issues around reported damp and mould. This was inappropriate given the potential health implications. There was also a short delay in attending an emergency leak repair.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a flood

  1. The timeline suggests the resident first reported the flood on 13 October 2022. At this point, her email referenced a foul smell in the property. Her subsequent complaint suggests she reported the flood again several weeks later. Nevertheless, an inspection did not take place until 22 November 2022. This was an inappropriate timeframe given the nature of the resident’s initial report. In addition, it should not have taken a formal complaint to prompt the landlord to investigate the flood. The timeline indicates the landlord’s insurance department failed to relay the resident’s initial report to its repairs team.
  2. During its inspection, the landlord noted “noxious smells that don’t create a healthy living environment at all”. Its report said urgent action was necessary to remove flood water and specialist breathing equipment was likely needed to access the basement. Further, the smell was “becoming pretty overpowering” and the situation was a health and safety concern. Still, no information was seen to show the landlord considered decanting the resident and her family on safety grounds. This was highly inappropriate given the circumstances.
  3. The evidence confirms the flood involved foul water. However, no information was seen to show the landlord completed any additional cleaning works after the water was removed. Whilst the flood was in a basement, the landlord should have at least considered disinfecting and deodorising the area in line with its repairs guide. Again, there was no indication that it did this. Given the potential hygiene implications, this was also highly inappropriate. Overall, the above points to an inappropriate lack of consideration for the resident’s safety.
  4. The timeline suggests the basement was flooded for around 7 weeks. This was based on the period between 13 October and 30 November 2022. However, the resident’s subsequent escalation request, from 29 December 2022, suggests the smell lingered in the property for some time afterwards. However, no information was seen to show the resident continued to raise foul smell concerns after this point. Overall the evidence suggests the property was impacted by the foul smelling flood water for around 3 months in total.
  5. The resident’s video footage suggests the entrance to the flooded basement was broadly opposite her bedroom doorway. In other words, the evidence shows she was sleeping in close proximity to the foul smelling water. The resident provided medical evidence that confirmed she was deemed unfit to work, due to respiratory sickness, around the same time, Whilst the Ombudsman cannot assess medical evidence, it is reasonable to conclude the resident’s illness added to the overall distress and inconvenience of the situation.
  6. It was also noted the flood contractor’s visit was delayed by 1 day on 29 November 2022. It is reasonable to conclude this delay caused the resident some avoidable inconvenience. The resident recently told us the basement has since flooded on 2 further occasions since November 2022. Whilst her comments were noted, no supporting information was seen in the landlord’s repair records or the parties’ subsequent correspondence. As a result, the Ombudsman lacked sufficient information to make a fair assessment.
  7. However, although it completed a drain survey, no information was seen to show the landlord assessed the likelihood of further floods following the above incident. Similarly, no information was seen to show it explored the possibility of mitigation works. This was inappropriate given the severity of the 2022 incident. On that basis, the evidence suggests it lacked sufficient information to make a reasonable decision. The Ombudsman’s orders will seek to improve the quality of the landlord’s information.
  8. Overall, the evidence shows there was severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point. This was broadly because the landlord showed an inappropriate lack of consideration for the resident’s safety. Despite clear health concerns, there was no evidence it considered decanting the family in response to the flood. Further, contrary to its repairs guide, there was no evidence it considered post-flood cleanup works. Similarly, there was little evidence that it considered the possibility of further incidents or explored mitigation works.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord awarded the resident £100 in compensation to address complaint handling delays at stage 2. The timeline points to related delays of around 3 months based on the period between 29 December 2022 and 21 April 2023. It also shows the Ombudsman’s intervention was necessary to prompt a response from the landlord. Given the circumstances, compensation was warranted and the amount awarded was reasonable. However, the timeline points to various other issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. For example, it is reasonable to conclude the resident’s emails on 23 October and 8 November 2018 amounted to complaints. If it was unsure, the managing agent could have been proactive and asked the resident how to proceed. Subsequently, both of its stage 1 responses identified service issues. For example, the initial response noted works were postponed due to illness. The second response noted the resident had been given incorrect information around a supervisor’s visit. Nevertheless, no attempt was made to address these issues. The landlord was ultimately responsible for the managing agent.
  3. The above shows delays and failures were overlooked during the resident’s initial complaint. This was both inappropriate and unfair to the resident. Some of these issues were fairly minor. Nevertheless, the timeline shows they were left unaddressed for around 64 months based on the timing of this assessment. To avoid similar issues going forwards, the landlord should routinely consider its own complaint handling, from the beginning to the end of the complaint journey, during every complaint investigation.
  4. The evidence suggests the resident’s second complaint was impacted by comparable issues. For example, in its stage 1 response on 29 November 2022, the landlord said the level of service that the resident received did not meet its required standards. However, the landlord did not attempt to address this and the resident’s complaint was not upheld. Overall, the above represents an inappropriate level of engagement on the landlord’s part. The landlord’s more recent response shows this failure was not limited to the managing agent.
  5. The timeline points to similar engagement issues at stage 2. For example, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s compensation figure would have been more accurate if it had thought more deeply about the impact of its failures on the resident. The landlord should attempt to unpack any reported detriment. It should also attempt to measure impacts whenever possible. This will help it to identify issues and award proportionate compensation accordingly. This will increase its chances of resolving matters fairly through its own internal complaints procedure.
  6. The landlord also failed to engage with the resident’s infestation concerns. For example, though they were referenced in both of her complaints, its stage 2 response did not mention the issue. As a result, the landlord’s position on the matter was unclear. Her correspondence suggests the issue caused the resident considerable distress. As a result, this was a significant failure by the  landlord. It was noted that, in its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord provided some information about pest control visits to the property.
  7. Nevertheless, the information seen did not cover the full infestation timeline. In addition, the Ombudsman is unable to speak on a landlord’s behalf. In other words, the landlord should complete a formal investigation, and address any failures accordingly, prior to our involvement. Given the circumstances, our orders will include a provision to ensure that the resident’s concerns about rodent infestation are addressed appropriately by the landlord. This is because they were unfairly overlooked.
  8. The evidence also points to another significant complaint handling issue. For example, in its stage 2 response, in April 2023, the landlord said a senior repairs leader would oversee the works until completion. Nevertheless, the timeline suggests little progress has been made since then. It was noted that, during her recent discussion with the Ombudsman, the resident was a unaware of any high-level involvement by the landlord. Overall, the situation points to either a capacity problem, or a failure to follow up by the appointed leader.
  9. In any case, the landlord should consider the highlighted issue carefully. This is because it needs to be capable of intervening effectively at stage 2 (an executive level review). Its inability to influence the timeline in this case, to improve matters for the resident, indicates there might be a wider issue for the landlord to address. In other words, the landlord must be capable of exercising effective control to improve outcomes for residents. It should review its relevant procedures accordingly.
  10. Overall, the evidence shows there was severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point. Broadly, the landlord failed to engage appropriately with the resident’s concerns. As a result, it: overlooked complaints, delays and failures, and significant issues. Its compensation award was disproportionate given the impact to the resident. It also failed to consider its own complaint handling and it was unable to improve matters after appointing a senior leader to oversee the repairs.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a flood.
    2. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of structural movement to the property’s extension.
    4. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Reasons

  1. Though it awarded the resident a significant amount of compensation in relation to the subsidence, the problem remains ongoing due repeated failures. The landlord’s award did not reflect the full delay timeline, the resident’s loss of enjoyment, or her resulting distress and inconvenience. Broadly, the landlord showed an inappropriate lack of resolution and customer focus.
  2. The resident was impacted by damp and mould related delays of around 3 months in total. The timeline also highlighted a number of record keeping or monitoring issues around reported damp and mould. This was inappropriate given the potential health and safety implications. However, there was no evidence of a significant impact to the resident. There was a short delay in attending an emergency leak repair.
  3. The landlord showed an inappropriate lack of consideration for the resident’s safety. Despite clear health concerns, there was no evidence it considered decanting the family in response to the flood. Contrary to its repairs guide, there was also no evidence it considered post-flood cleanup works. Similarly, there was little evidence that it considered the possibility of further incidents or explored mitigation works.
  4. The landlord failed to engage appropriately with the resident’s concerns. As a result, it overlooked complaints, delays and failures, and significant issues. Its compensation award was disproportionate given the impact to the resident. It also failed to consider its own complaint handling, and it was unable to improve matters for the resident after appointing a senior leader to oversee the repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord’s Chief Executive to apologise to the resident in person for the key failures identified in this report. They should acknowledge: the subsidence is ongoing after around 7 years, the landlord failed to show due consideration for the resident’s safety, and a key complaint issue (around infestation) was overlooked due to the landlord’s lack of engagement with the resident’s complaint. The landlord should evidence its visit to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £9,673.25 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £5,623.25 (£67.75 x 83 months) for any loss of enjoyment/amenity the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of the structural movement. The landlord is free to deduct any amount it has previously paid from the £3,000 it awarded at stage 2.
    2. £2,000 for any related distress and inconvenience the resident was caused.
    3. £150 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her reports of leaks, damp and mould.
    4. £1,500 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the flood.
    5. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. If it has already paid this amount, the landlord is free to deduct the £100 it previously awarded at stage 2.
  3. The landlord’s executive team to review the resident’s case and develop an action plan. With reference to the subsidence, previous and potential further floods, and damp/mould, the review should establish whether the property is safe for the family. The landlord should obtain a new structural survey to inform its decision making. It should also consider the possibility of a management transfer. The landlord should share its survey, review, and action plan with the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. It should also use the review to extract service improvement learnings.
  4. The landlord to share the review’s identified improvements with its relevant staff for training purposes. It should concentrate on the prolonged subsidence timeline, its failure to consider the full safety implications of the flood, and its failure to influence the timeline following its stage 2 response. The landlord could use the resident’s experience as a case study during training exercises. In any case, it should share a copy of its relevant internal correspondence with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. Following our recent special report into the landlord, it is already working with the Ombudsman to improve its overall complaint handling.
  5. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.