London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202007527)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007527

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

20 August 2021

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cracks and subsidence at the property and the back door not closing properly.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy started on 28 August 2018. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat within a converted one-story terrace property.
On 6 August 2020, the resident called the landlord to report cracks in her plaster work on the walls and ceilings in every room. The landlord’s call notes state it discussed the “£1 coin test” and that all the cracks are smaller than this. The landlord advised that they were just cosmetic but if anything changed, she should give it a call back and it would discuss the options.
On 17 August 2020, the resident called the landlord to report cracks in the walls and she said the rear door was not closing/locking properly. The landlord raised a work order for its contractor to attend the property, who attended the same day to secure the rear door.
On 24 August 2020, the resident called the landlord to report that the cracks are larger than £1 coin. She said that she tried to fill them but the cracks seemed to be getting worse throughout the whole property and she felt the ceiling could fall. The landlord raised a work order for its repair team to attend. Its records show an operative from its repair team attended on 27 August 2020 who feedback that they were hairline cracks.
On 16 September 2020, the resident called the landlord and said that the house “was sinking” and she wanted to make a complaint. She reported cracks in the ceiling and that it was “falling down”. The landlord’s notes of the call state she “was very upset”. The landlord raised a work order for its repair team to attend the property to secure the rear door. Its work order indicates the landlord’s repairs team attended in the early hours of 17 September 2020 to secure the rear door and that they noted there were “large cracks around the door”.
On 19 September 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding its response to her reports of large cracks internally and externally. She explained that she had first noticed cracks to the internal and externals walls a few months ago and said that she reported the issues to the landlord on 6 August 2020 after the local council advised her that the property may be subsiding.
Within her complaint the resident detailed the problems she was experiencing including that the property was becoming very dusty due to the ceilings and walls crumbling as well as being unable to close or lock the external doors. She also set out the communications she had had with the landlord since 6 August 2020 and said that it had not yet sent a structural engineer to assess the problems in her home despite the operative on 17 August 2020 indicating there was an underlying subsidence problem. The resident complained that when she raised concerns about the magnitude of the cracks and if asbestos was present at the property with the plasterer on 27 August 2020, they advised that: her house was safe and would not fall down; it was not subsiding; there was no risk of asbestos; the cracks were normal and they are being caused by normal house movement and; this would keep happening. She stated that the plasterer also told her that it was her responsibility to refill all of the cracks and not to listen to customer service agents advising it was the landlord’s responsibility. She said the plasterer however did say that the kitchen/garden wall had not been built correctly but that she had not received any follow up appointment from the landlord since.
The resident also advised in her formal complaint that after being unable to close the rear door properly, she temporarily moved out of the property. Whilst the repairer who attended on 17 September 2020 managed to fix the garden door after banging and slamming it for over an hour, it remains stiff. She now has no other option but to call the landlord’s out of hours team every night to have someone sent to secure the back door. The resident also asked the landlord if it was willing to decant her to another more suitable property.
On 20 and 21 September 2020, the landlord’s contractor attended to secure the rear door following reports it was not closing properly. The repair notes from 21 September 2020 stated the door was secured: “with some force by putting pressure on the multipoint handles to get the key to turn in the lock”. The notes also stated that a structural engineer was needed to attend as it looked like the corner of the building was “dropping”. This was also set out in an internal email dated 21 September 2020 which states that an engineer needs to have a look at the building.
The landlord’s internal email communications dated 7 October 2020 stated that a structural engineer needed to attend the building as it just spoke with the resident who advised the kitchen wall was coming away from the ceiling and her front and rears doors did not shut properly as the house was sinking. The landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had arranged an appointment for a surveyor to attend her property on 9 October 2020 to address the subsidence/cracks within the property.
The landlord’s building surveyor attended on 9 October 2020 and the landlord’s internal communications show that they raised the matter with its insurance team on 12 October 2020 asking them to send a structural engineer to the property as there was evidence of subsidence internally and externally. Its insurance team replied on the same day advising it had appointed its engineers to arrange an appointment.
On 12 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident advising that its building surveyor has asked its insurance team to arrange for specialists structural engineers to attend to carry out a full report. It would contact her to confirm the appointment date.
On 14 October 2020, the resident confirmed she had received an appointment for 5 November 2020 at 9:30 am for engineers to attend but said she wanted “full compensation”. The landlord advised it would provide a response to her complaint by the end of the week. Later the same day, the resident emailed the landlord advising its insurance team had been back in touch with her and said the occupants of Flat B were not available for the morning appointment scheduled and were only available at 1.30 pm on 5 November 2020. The resident said she felt like she had no choice about accepting the change to the appointment time. She also requested:
1. advice on the process of withholding rent as this was “her statutory right” as it had not actioned these repairs in a timely manner.
2. an update on its investigation into what was happening to the property and the advice received from staff members in particular the plasterer who advised her house was safe and the issues were normal.
3. advice on at what stage she would be placed in emergency accommodation. Her back door had now been left unsecured for a week and the floor was “dropping”.
The landlord replied on same day advising the resident that in regards to rent payments, there is no “statutory procedure” which allows her to withhold rent so to do so would be a breach of her tenancy agreement. It said it would address all of her other concerns in its response to her complaint which will be sent out by the end of the week.
The landlord’s internal communications show that on 16 October 2020, its insurance team confirmed an appointment had been booked for 5 November 2020 for its engineers to inspect the property. They also said it would not decant residents unless the property is deemed uninhabitable or structurally unsafe. Further, they said its engineers would advise if alternative accommodation is required once they have visited.
On 16 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident stating its complaint response would be sent to her by next Tuesday (20 October 2020) at the latest and it apologised for the delay.
On 25 October 2020, the landlord sent a complaint response to the resident referencing her complaint about the lack of communication received concerning cracks and subsidence to the property. It stated:
1. Repairs should have been managed more effectively and it apologised that its service fell short of an acceptable standard.
2. Regarding the operative who attended on 27 August 2020, it had received feedback from supervisor of its maintenance department who apologised for this operative’s inappropriate conduct and the incorrect information given to her. The landlord stated that it took such matters very seriously and an internal investigation would take place and that any appropriate action would be taken however it would be dealt with internally. This service has seen evidence to show the landlord considered this matter internally as advised to the resident.
3. It acknowledged that the repeated issues she was now experiencing with the locks to her doors could be due to the cracks. It acknowledged that a building surveyor should have been sent to assess this and apologised for not fulfilling her request for this.
4. It apologised for not attending an out of hours callout regarding her back door within its published timeframes.
5. It confirmed that during the inspection on 9 October 2020, its building surveyor identified cracks both internally and externally and that this had now been referred to its insurance team who would be handling this matter going forward. The insurance team had now contacted the resident and confirmed an appointment with structural engineers for 5 November 2020. It advised they will carry out a full structural report and liaise with its insurance team regarding the outcome and if a decant is needed in order to undertake the required works. It confirmed that her request for compensation will be investigated by the insurance team as part of her insurance claim.
6. Regarding her request (made during a phone call) to be decanted from the property, it said a manager would contact her to advise about her options should she be decanted however, the information may be limited until the insurance team was able to confirm if a decant was necessary.
It thanked the resident for her patience whilst it conducted its investigation and advised should she remain dissatisfied following receipt of its response, her next step would be to approach the Housing Ombudsman.
On 25 October 2020, the resident replied asking for clarification if this was its final response. She said it was a “partial response” to the concerns raised in her complaint. The resident said it had not confirmed in writing that her home was safe to live in in its current state with asbestos present and it had not mentioned anything about health and safety or the fact that she had no safe fire exit at present.
The landlord’s internal email dated 28 October 2020 stated the resident is unhappy with its response and queried if a review should be raised.
The landlord’s internal communications show its insurance team advised the landlord on 9 November that following their visit to the property their engineers confirmed damage to the rear extension as a result of clay shrinkage subsidence. They said there were third party trees at the rear and their engineers would be arranging a site investigation and monitoring at the property to provide evidence for their removal. The email also referenced damage to the other flat (B).
The resident contacted her MP in November 2020 advising of her concerns relating to the subsidence affecting her home. She said the issue had been ongoing for nearly six months and that the front and rear doors did not close or lock properly. She had raised these concerns with the landlord previously and it had made no attempt to address the underlying issues or place her in suitable accommodation. She said the property was not secure and the issues with closing and lock the doors meant there was no fire exit and she was sleeping with hammers in case there was a fire.
On 24 November 2020, the landlord sent a response to the resident’s MP stating:
1. Its insurance team was notified of the possible subsidence claim on 12 October 2020. They appointed engineers the same day who are in the process of investigating the possibility of subsidence at the property.
2. It confirmed that a subsidence claim had now been set up.
3. Engineers had visited and confirmed that damage to the rear extension is a result of clay shrinkage subsidence. Engineers noted a number of third-party trees at the rear and have arranged for a site investigation to be undertaken on the 30 November to confirm the cause. They would also be setting up monitoring in the meantime to provide evidence to the third party for their tree removal.
4. The resident reported an issue with her back door only. In this situation the front door serves as the default fire exit for the property.
On 24 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord reiterating that she wanted to be decanted as the property was uninhabitable and that the building surveyor had told her she would be decanted. She also asked about compensation and said its insurance team knew nothing about any compensation payment. She followed this up with a further email on 27 November 2020 advising that mould had started to form at the property.
The landlord’s internal communications with its insurance team indicate they discussed decanting the resident. Its insurance team said its last report did not find the property to be uninhabitable, however they mentioned the resident was experiencing issues opening and closing the doors and that the landlord was attending the property every evening to lock the doors. No conclusion was reached.
On 27 November 2020, the landlord emailed the resident advising its building surveyor has confirmed that he would be carrying out a decant referral assessment and it will update her next week. It said it had also arranged an inspection for its building surveyor to attend on 4 December 2020. The evidence indicates this inspection went ahead as planned however this service has not been provided with the details of its findings.
The structural engineers appointed by the landlord’s insurance team carried out a site inspection on 30 November 2020 however this report has not been seen by the service. On 22 December 2020, the structural engineers sent the resident an email advising its site investigation report was being reviewed and it would be in touch with its next steps.
Evidence of the parties’ communications provided by the landlord show that the resident subsequently contacted the landlord on 31 December 2020, 7 January 2021 and 19 January 2021 chasing it for its decision on whether she could be decanted from the property and for updates on the subsidence works. On 9 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to advise she had been living elsewhere due to the issues at the property but wanted to temporarily move back in but was concerned about the condition of the property. The landlord’s internal communications show it was in regular contact with its insurance team during this timeframe and that it replied to the resident on 4 January 2021, 8 January 2021, 18 January 2021, and on 22 January 2021 in which it said its insurance team had advised its engineers were still reviewing the site investigation and that they were awaiting the findings. It also advised its building surveyor had said if it was found that the drain needed renewing due to having tree roots, this would be a good opportunity to reduce ground levels which would assist and alleviate the mould that is occurring in the kitchen.
The landlord’s internal communications show that:
1. On 19 February 2021, its insurance team advised it had received the report from its engineers who confirmed roots from a tree owned by the local authority (LA)and that it had authorised its engineers to appoint their mitigation team to liaise with the LA to have it removed. Meanwhile its contactors would undertake drain repairs.
2. On 1 March 2021, its insurance team advised that whilst its contractors would renew the drain, they wouldn’t be lowering the ground levels as this was not related to the subsidence and fell out of the insurance claim.
3. On 4 March 2021, its insurance team advised that it was unable to advise what works would be undertaken or when as its engineers were still liaising with the third party tree owners to remove their trees. Until mitigation had been completed, a schedule of works would not be drawn up as further damage could be caused. It anticipated final repairs would be completed by December 2021 however said this was dependent on the willingness of the private owners and LA to remove their trees.
The landlord’s internal communications also show that:
1. On 4 March 2021, its building surveyor advised he could not fill out the decant form until he knew what works insurance would be carrying out and how long it would take. He would arrange to get the ground levels lowered and the drainage renewed – once this had been carried out then the insurance contractor could attend and carry out the crack repairs.
2. On 23 March 2021, its building surveyor advised he had raised a work order for its contractor to complete drainage work. He also advised he had spoken to the insurance team about decanting the resident but was told they are waiting for a report about this and this may mean another visit from its insurance contractor.
3. On 1 April 2020, its building surveyor advised its contractor would commence drainage works on 14 April 2020 and that the resident does not need to be decanted as there was a side gate however he would attend when the work was underway and make a further assessment of the kitchen where the mould was in case they need to remove base units to check if there was mould behind them- this may necessitate a permanent decant.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 and 10 March 2021 asking for an update on the requested decant and for a reply to her 9 February 2021 email. She said she had tried to call the landlord every day for the past two weeks.
The landlord replied on 10 March 2021 apologising for the delay and explaining that it was awaiting an update from its building surveyor. It emailed the resident later the same day and advised her that the anticipated timescale to address the subsidence was December 2021. It also said regarding damp and mould recurrence, its building surveyor confirmed the ground needed to be lowered and the drainage system renewed, to resolve the issue. Regarding the decant, it said information on all of the required works was needed before it could fill out the decant application.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord called the resident and advised it could not decant her from the property as it does not have major structural damage.
The landlord’s work order raised on 23 March 2021 for drainage work at the property indicates this work was completed on 21 April 2021.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that it was looking into a permanent decant for the resident. On 11 August 2021, the landlord provided evidence showing that the resident had been offered a permanent decant and which suggested the resident had accepted the new property it had offered her.
On 17 August 2021 the resident confirmed during a phone call to this service that she had accepted the new property offered by the landlord and was awaiting a move in date that she was expecting “any day”.
The resident also advised that she had not been living at the property since around January 2021 due to its condition including the external doors not closing properly. She said had been “sofa-surfing” during this timeframe but said that she had referred the matter of rent (due under the tenancy agreement) to court and that the court had ruled she only owed the landlord for storage costs at the property during this timeframe. Furthermore, the resident said she was unhappy about the landlord’s recent letter sent to her dated 4 August 2021 in which it offered £585 in compensation.

Policies

The landlord’s repair policy titled ‘Your home and maintenance responsibilities as a tenant’ states it is responsible for keeping the structure and the exterior of the property safe secure and weatherproof. Further that it will repair large cracks and severely crumbling surfaces and “structural collapse” and failing elements however the tenant is responsible for “hairline cracks” in walls and ceilings.
Its repair policy states it is responsible for repairing unsecure external doors.
The repair policy states that it will respond to emergencies described as “where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public” within 24 hours however all other repairs it will arrange a “mutually agreeable appointment”. Its telephone lines are open from 8am to 6 pm and an emergency only service operates outside of these hours.
Its rehousing policy defines “decant” as a legal definition meaning where a resident is required to move out of their home, either temporarily or permanently, so that work can be completed or the property can be disposed of. This includes an emergency move where there is an unplanned or unexpected event that makes the resident’s home uninhabitable or it requires immediate repair works that cannot be complete with the resident living there.
The landlord’s complaint policy at the time stated:
1. at stage one it would provide a response advising of the outcome of its investigation, how it would resolve the issues and timescales within 10 working days. If it could not it would explain why and write again within a further 10 days. After it had agreed the resolution and confirmed its decision in writing, it would monitor progress until all actions were complete.
2. If the resident was dissatisfied with its resolution and asked to escalate to stage two, it would need to know what they were dissatisfied with and what action would resolve the complaint. It would provide a stage two response within 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

Regarding the matter of the resident withholding rent which she raised with the landlord during the complaints process, the resident recently told the Ombudsman that this has been addressed via a legal process so this will not be addressed further.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cracks and subsidence at the property and the back door not closing properly

When the resident first called the landlord’s customer services centre on 6 August 2020 to report cracks in the wall and ceiling, as the resident confirmed that the size of the cracks were “smaller than a £1 coin”, no action was taken by the landlord on the basis the cracks were “cosmetic” rather than indicating a more serious issue. The landlord however advised the resident to call back if anything changed. As the resident is responsible for “hairline” cracks under the landlord’s repair policy, its advice was in line with this policy at the time.
When the resident called back on 17 August 2020 reporting concern about further cracks and because the rear door was not locking properly, the landlord raised a work order for its contractor to attend the property to secure the rear door. This indicates it dealt with this issue regarding the rear door as an emergency which, due to the potential safety risk, was appropriate. However, there is no evidence of it following up on the issue of the cracks to the walls and ceilings.
When the resident reported that the cracks were larger than a £1 coin on 24 August 2020, the landlord arranged for an operative from its repairs team to attend on 27 August 2020 to investigate. The evidence indicates that the outcome of this operative’s visit was that they considered the cracks to be hairline and so no action was taken. It is noted that the landlord subsequently confirmed in its complaint response that this operative had provided incorrect advice indicating there was a lack of action following this visit which was inappropriate. Further, when a different operative noted there were “large cracks around the rear door” after attending a few weeks later on 16 September 2020, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have taken steps to investigate this further but there is no evidence of it doing so.
The resident raised a formal complaint by email on 19 September 2020 regarding the landlord’s response to her reports of cracks. Within her complaint she gave a detailed account of the problems she was experiencing including that the property was becoming very dusty due to the ceilings and walls crumbling as well as being unable to close or lock the external doors. Despite this and its operative who attended on 21 September 2020 noting that an engineer needed to look at the building, the landlord only took this step after a further call from the resident on 7 October 2020. The landlord arranged for a building surveyor to attend on 9 October 2020 at which point subsidence was confirmed and the landlord referred the matter to its insurance team on 12 October 2020 to appoint structural engineers to assess and monitor the subsidence.
Therefore, despite the resident first reporting cracks in the ceiling and walls and problems with the rear door on 6 August 2020, it took several further reports from the resident before the landlord arranged for a building survey on 12 October 2020 to investigate the cause of these issues. The initial delay was because the information received from the resident on 6 August 2020 did not warrant further investigation. However, it is evident the landlord could have taken steps to investigate the issue sooner than it did after receiving further reports from the resident on 17 and 24 August 2020 and once “large cracks” were reported by its operative on 16 September 2020. This and the resident’s repeated reports of the rear door not closing or locking properly were potentially indicative of an underlying problem. Therefore, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have arranged a building survey at this point in order to establish the cause. Its repair policy does not give timescales for non-emergency repairs however based on the evidence, the delay in arranging a building survey until 12 October 2020, was unreasonable.
In its final response of 25 October 2020, the landlord acknowledged it could have managed repairs more effectively and it apologised that its service fell short of an acceptable standard. It said that a building survey should have been arranged to assess the situation when the resident reported problems with locking her rear door as this issue may relate to the issue causing the cracks and it apologised for not fulfilling the resident’s earlier request for a building surveyor. This indicates that the landlord recognised shortfalls in its service provided when responding to the issues reported by the resident up to the date of the final response and its apology was appropriate in the circumstances. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that the landlord carried out an internal investigation into the conduct of its operative who attended on 27 August 2020 following the resident raising a concern about this; this was appropriate and in line with what it told the resident it would do. It also confirmed that following the building survey which identified cracks both internally and externally, the matter was referred to its insurance team on 12 October 2020 who would be handling the matter going forward and had arranged for their structural engineers to carry out a full structural report. In light of the confirmed subsidence, this was an appropriate step for the landlord to take.
However, the resident had also asked about being decanted from the property due to the effects of the subsidence. In its final response the landlord indicated it was awaiting confirmation from its insurance team as to whether this was necessary, therefore, in the circumstances, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have followed up on this promise within a reasonable timeframe or when it received this confirmation from its insurance team.
On 5 November 2020, the appointed engineers visited the property and confirmed that damage to the rear extension was a result of clay shrinkage subsidence. They noted a number of third-party trees at the rear which was confirmed during a further site investigation on 30 November 2020. Following further contact from the resident on 24 November 2020 in relation to her request to be decanted from the property, the landlord told the resident on 27 November 2020 that it would provide her with an answer to this “next week” once its building surveyor had visited the property on 4 December 2020. However, it is evident its building surveyor subsequently advised that they could not confirm its position on this until the insurance team had advised of the scope of works. The evidence indicates that over the next three months, the landlord was in regular and frequent communication with its insurance team chasing the progress of subsidence works during which time the insurance team appointed its mitigation team to liaise with the LA to have the tree removed. Engineers also set up monitoring to provide evidence to support their request to the LA for the tree removal.
Whilst this indicates that the landlord was working to get the subsidence issue addressed, it did not keep the resident sufficiently updated and the evidence indicates that communication from the landlord usually only followed contact from the resident chasing for an update, in particular in relation to her request to be decanted. This was sometimes after lengthy gaps in communication from the landlord, for example, after the resident’s email of 9 February 2021, there is no evidence of a response from the landlord until 10 March 2021 and this was only after it received further emails from the resident on 8 and 10 March 2021 chasing a response. Within its 10 March 2021 response, the landlord advised the resident that the anticipated timescale to address the subsidence was by December 2021 and it reiterated that it could not “fill out the decant application” until it had all of the information on the required works. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to wait until it had further information from its insurance team regarding the required works before it could assess if a decant from the property was necessary, it gave an unrealistic timescale to the resident in the first instance resulting in the resident having to chase, over a number of months, for a decision on this. This was a service shortcoming by the landlord.
Furthermore, the landlord did not address all of the resident’s concerns in its 10 March 2021 response including that she had been living elsewhere due to the effects of the subsidence but wanted to move back into the property however was concerned about the condition and safety. As it is reasonable to expect the landlord to respond to any queries raised relating to her situation, its failure to do so and the insufficient communication from the landlord during this timeframe, demonstrates further shortfalls in the service provided by the landlord.
It is evident that in April 2021 the landlord undertook drainage works to the property including lowering the ground due to the presence of tree roots and to alleviate damp and mould that had been found behind the kitchen units at the property. This work had been identified as needed before work to address the effects of the subsidence could begin. It told the resident on 1 April 2021 that she would not need to be decanted from the property whilst this work was being completed. The drainage works were completed by the landlord on 21 April 2021.
Whilst these repairs were completed by the landlord within a reasonable timeframe after being identified following the site investigations in November and December 2020, these did not form part of the main subsidence works which the landlord had told the resident were anticipated to be completed by December 2021. On 29 April 2021, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that it was looking into a permanent decant for the resident although it did not explain if this was because it had received confirmation of the scope of works from its insurance team that deemed a permanent decant was appropriate in the circumstances.
On 11 August 2021, the landlord provided evidence to this service to show that it had offered the resident a permanent decant and the resident confirmed to us on 17 August 2021 that she had accepted the property offered by the landlord. She said that she was expecting to receive confirmation of a move in date from the landlord “any day now”. Therefore, whilst it is unclear from the available evidence whether the landlord offered the resident a permanent decant as a result of either the subsidence itself or the repairs meaning the property was uninhabitable in line with its rehousing policy, as the landlord has now confirmed that the resident is to be decanted, it is appropriate to include this as an order below.
In relation to compensation, in its final response of 25 October 2020, the landlord recognised that its service had fallen short of an acceptable standard when dealing with the resident’s reports of subsidence however it did not offer compensation. It did state that its insurance team would investigate her claim for compensation however there is no evidence of its insurance team doing so. Due to the unreasonable delay by the landlord in investigating the resident’s reports of cracks at the property; the delay in assessing her request to be decanted and unrealistic timescales given in relation to this request and; the insufficient communication provided to the resident in response to her queries raised regarding the subsidence and the impact of this, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £450 for the stress and inconvenience caused to her. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman own Remedies Guidance, which refers to awards of £250 to £700 for instances of considerable service failure or maladministration which have had a considerable impact, for instance: where there has been a failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs or; where a resident has to repeatedly chase responses.
It is noted that the resident advised the landlord, both in her formal complaint and in subsequent communications, that has spent periods of time living away from the property due to the effects of the subsidence including the difficulties securing the external doors. This is something she reiterated to the Ombudsman on 17 August 2021.There is no evidence of the landlord addressing this aspect of the resident’s complaint or of it considering whether it is appropriate to pay the resident compensation for any direct costs incurred due to living away from the property. Therefore, an order has been included below to address this.

Complaint handling

The landlord issued a complaint response on 25 October 2020. As the resident had raised her formal complaint on 19 September 2020, this shows it did not respond within the 10 working day timeframe stated in stage one of its complaints policy.
Furthermore, within its 25 October 2020 complaint response, the landlord stated if the resident remained dissatisfied following receipt of its response her next step would be to approach the Housing Ombudsman. Despite the resident immediately querying with the landlord if its response was its final response -as it had not issued any stage one response prior to 25 October 2020 – and asking it to confirm this in writing as she wanted to escalate it further because it had not addressed all her concerns, there is no evidence of the landlord responding to her query. Neither is there any evidence of the landlord escalating her complaint to stage two of its complaint process. The landlord subsequently told the Ombudsman in April 2021 that the complaint had not completed its complaints process as the resident had not advised she wanted to escalate her complaint. However, the evidence demonstrates that the resident had requested to escalate her complaint in her 25 October 2020 email which the landlord did not do. The landlord’s internal email of 28 October 2020 referring to a review request demonstrates it had considered the resident had requested a review.
Therefore, its signposting to the Housing Ombudsman in its 25 October 2020 complaint response, prior to escalation to stage two, was premature. Due to this and because it did not escalate the resident’s complaint when she requested this, the landlord did not follow its complaint policy which includes two stages. As it provided no explanation for this, the landlord did not act appropriately in this regard and meant the resident did not receive a review of her complaint as sought. The landlord shall pay the resident further compensation of £100 for stress and inconvenience caused.
It is noted that the landlord issued a further response to the resident more recently on 4 August 2021 in which it offered compensation. It is noted that the landlord has called this letter its ‘final response’ however, given this was nearly ten months after the resident requested escalation of her complaint, this does not make up for the landlord’s service failure when handling the resident’s complaint in 2020. In the circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the compensation amount offered in its letter in addition to the compensation ordered above.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when responding to the resident’s reports of cracks and subsidence at the property and the back door not closing properly.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling her complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed with investigating the resident’s reports of cracks at the property which in turn delayed the subsidence being referred to its insurance team for it to address. The landlord did not respond to response to the resident’s requests to be decanted in a timely or clear manner. The landlord did not always provide timely or sufficient communications when responding to her concerns raised about the subsidence works or the impact of these.
The landlord did not follow its complaint policy when handling the resident’s complaint as it delayed with providing a complaint response under stage of its complaint process and did not escalate it to stage when the resident asked it to. It also prematurely signed posted her to the Ombudsman.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £550 for stress and inconvenience in addition to the compensation of £585 offered in its 4 August 2021 letter.
2. Provide the resident with a move in date in respect to the new property it has agreed in response to her request to be permanently decanted from the property, if it has not already done so.
3. Respond to the resident’s complaint that she has spent periods of time living away from the property due to the effects of the subsidence and consider if it is appropriate to pay the resident compensation for any direct costs incurred due to this.
4. The above orders should be provided within four weeks.