Ocean Housing Limited (202017440)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017440

Ocean Housing Limited

21 December 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 handling of repairs to the rear bathroom extension.
2. The associated handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an Assured Shorthold Tenancy that commenced in 2009. The property is a three-bedroom house with a small single storey extension to the rear of the property which contains at least part of the bathroom.
The resident’s complaint relates to repairs to her bathroom to address cracks in the walls of the property.
The resident first raised concerns about the structure of the property in 2011 and the landlord arranged for an independent engineering contractor to inspect the property in November 2011. They did not consider external cracking to the walls was “structurally significant” and said it was “most likely to be caused by normal movements in the masonry … Cladding the property in insulation should help reduce these movements by providing a more consistent temperature in the wall.” The landlord has indicated that external cladding was installed as per the recommendations in January 2012.
The repairs records show that following reports of internal cracking, the landlord inspected the property on 21 November 2013, 21 November 2016 and again on 8 February 2018 when it noted an external crack between the rear extension and the main building. The landlord stated it would monitor the crack monthly and would repair it once it was satisfied there was no further movement taking place.
Therefore, the evidence suggests that the resident was in regular communication with the landlord regarding the structure of the property since she first raised concerns in 2011 up to when the landlord identified the presence of external cracking to the resident’s rear bathroom extension in February 2018. However, the Scheme notes that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. The resident did not raise a formal complaint with the landlord about this issue prior to October 2020, therefore this investigation will consider events from February 2018 when the landlord confirmed external cracking in response to the resident’s reports of cracking to the structure of the property which constitutes a reasonable timeframe prior to her formal complaint.
The independent engineering contractor completed a second inspection in February 2019. This inspection found that the extension had “been subject to some outward rotation” most likely caused by the foundations for the extension being at a different level to that of the house foundations. The independent engineering contractor confirmed that this movement had not been evident at its previous inspection and therefore had likely occurred more recently (than 2011).
The independent engineering contractor visited the property in August 2019 to dig trial holes needed to produce a detailed foundation design to underpin the bathroom. On 26 September 2019, the landlord informed the resident by email that it would be going out to tender with three contractors before 4 October 2019. It advised that once the cost had been received the works would be completed as soon as viable.
The landlord has provided a timeline of the case that states it received the design from the independent engineering contractor in October 2019 and put the job out to tender. However, due to limited interest in the job, in November 2019 the landlord asked one of its regular contractors if it would be interested in the work. The contractor provided a quote for the works, including internal fittings and fixtures in January 2020, which the landlord approved.
The timeline provided by the landlord shows that the landlord conducted a site visit with its contractor in February 2020 and during the visit they identified a shared drain owned by the water company as well as a blockage. The landlord arranged for a different contractor to attend to clear the blockage and applied to the water company for permission to conduct works in the vicinity of its assets (the shared drain). The water company informed the landlord the works were also in the vicinity of the water main. Shortly afterwards all non-essential work was put on hold due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
According to the information provided by the landlord, at the end of May 2020 the water company confirmed the water main did not need to be moved but asked that the landlord CCTV the drain to report on its condition. The landlord raised this job with its contractor, but it was subsequently cancelled by the contractor in error. The landlord raised the job again in August 2020.
The resident contacted the landlord in September 2020 to ask when the works would start and to request an internal structural survey due to internal cracks. The landlord advised it was waiting for the CCTV drain survey to be completed and confirmation that payment required by the water company had been made before the works could start.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 October 2020 explaining it had tried calling her to arrange an appointment to discuss her home and repair issues but had been unable to speak with her or leave a message. The landlord asked the resident to contact it to arrange an appointment. This email was sent from the landlord’s ‘Enquiries’ email address.
The resident responded the same day. In her email she raised concerns about the standard of her home, the condescending and belittling behaviour by male members of staff and requested a rent reduction. On 5 October, the email was forwarded from the ‘Enquiries’ email address to the member of staff who had sent the previous email. He later advised the resident that he had not received her email of 2 October and asked her to resend it. The resident resent the email directly to the member of staff concerned on 19 October.
On 14 October 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint by email. The resident said her complaint was in relation to how she had been treated and often ignored by the assets team in relation to the disrepair at her property. The resident indicated that she had outlined her concerns and requested a rent reduction in an earlier email dated 2 October, to which she had not received a response. The resident referenced first reporting cracking in 2011 and alleged that since then the issues had been patched up and ignored. She also said she had found some of the inspectors to be condescending and belittling. She asked that her case was looked at with a fresh pair of eyes.
On 10 November, the resident contacted the landlord to follow up her complaint. The landlord stated it had not received her complaint of 14 October 2020, for which it apologised. She re-sent it on the same date and it confirmed it would log the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 23 November 2020, and it apologised for the time taken to carry out the works to the resident’s home. It asked the resident to provide some dates for the independent engineering contractor to complete the internal survey as per her request and advised that this needed to be done before it could start the underpinning work. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint stating, “the length of time taken to resolve this issue and the inconvenience caused, even with the Covid lockdown, is excessive.” The landlord did not offer any compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 1 December 2020. In her escalation request she highlighted that her complaint should have been dealt with by senior manager who had not been involved with the case but that the response had come from a manager in the assets team, who she had complaint about. She also raised that the stage one response had not dealt with her allegations about how staff had spoken to her or responded to her request for a rent reduction. The resident requested a rent reduction and redress for what she considered to be excessive heating bills due to the repair issues. She reiterated her request for the complaint to be dealt with by independent person.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 December 2020. In its letter the landlord stated it had acknowledged her stage two request on 3 December 2020, but the resident states she never received an acknowledgement. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of this acknowledgement letter and it does not feature in the landlord’s complaint timeline document. The landlord advised the resident her stage two complaint response would be delayed until after the survey was completed on 10 December. The landlord advised it would issue its stage two response by 23 December 2020.
On 16 December 2020, the independent engineering contractor provided its report to the landlord. The report stated that they had previously inspected the property in June 2011, at which point the property was being monitored monthly using a laser level survey. The contractor explained that their own survey and the results of the laser level survey indicated that the internal cracks did not appear to be structurally significant and were likely caused by normal thermal movements. They also confirmed that the only external cracks of concern noted at the survey on 10 December 2020 were those between the main building and the extension.
The contractor concluded that the internal cracking was not structurally concerning and stated that it was a “reoccurring cosmetic defect which will come and go during the annual cycle of temperature changes and will require general ongoing maintenance and repairs by repeated filling and decorating.”
On 21 December 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that following their conversation on 18 December, the complaint had been put ‘on-hold’ until the works to the property had been completed. The landlord advised the resident’s complaint had therefore been temporarily closed and would be reopened following the works if the resident still wished to pursue it. The landlord also confirmed works were due to start on 8 February 2021 and that it would work with her to identify suitable decant accommodation.
The resident responded to the landlord on 6 January 2021 stating she wished all historical elements of her complaint to be investigated as the ongoing repair works did not prevent the landlord investigating and responding to those issues. The resident also requested a copy of the report from the survey on 10 December and highlighted that no one had acknowledged her request for a rent reduction.
On 21 January 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord outlined the resident’s complaint as relating to her dissatisfaction with the outcome of investigations at her property in 2011, how staff had spoken with her previously and that her stage one complaint had been investigated by a member of staff involved, her belief that the cracks were not due to thermal movement and her request for a copy of the report, her increased heating costs she believed were caused by the cracks, her rent reduction request and compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord explained it had spoken to the staff members concerned and they had advised it had not been their intention to belittle her or make her feel her concerns were not valid. The landlord apologised that the resident had felt this way. The landlord provided the summary from each of the survey reports in November 2011, February 2019, and December 2020. It stated that following each report, follow up work had been identified and actioned. In relation to the most recent it said whilst internal cracking was not deemed to be of structural concern, it would fill and plaster all areas necessary to ensure all wall and ceiling surfaces were ready to take decoration. Additionally, it would paint the affected rooms and it would do this whilst she was decanted during the repair to the bathroom.
The landlord offered compensation of £500 in relation to the resident’s request for a rent reduction and redress for the increased heating costs. The landlord stated this was the maximum compensation it could offer and stated this would be credited to the resident’s rent account. The landlord confirmed it had upheld the resident’s complaint overall.
On 2 February 2021, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage three. In her letter she raised that the landlord had not followed its own complaint policy and complained about the length of time being taken to escalate her complaint through its complaint process. She said it had not provided her with copies of the reports, she did not feel £500 accounted for the stress and inconvenience she had experienced over three years, she felt the rent reduction should be backdated to February 2018 and should be ongoing.
The landlord issued its stage three response on 16 February 2021. The landlord explained that it had not received the resident’s email of 14 October 2020 and therefore it only became aware of her complaint on 10 November 2020. It stated it responded to this complaint on 23 November 2020 in line with its policy. Whilst it noted that the resident felt her stage one complaint should not have been investigated by a person involved, its policy was for the service manager for the area responsible to complete the investigation. In relation to the stage two complaint, the landlord stated that it had extended the deadline for a response with the resident’s agreement. The landlord explained that when the resident asked for the historical elements to be investigated on 6 January 2021, it responded on 21 January 2021 in line with its policy. The landlord stated it did not uphold the resident’s complaint that it had not followed its policy because it had complied with its policy.
The landlord explained that it had not provided the resident with copies of the reports because they are treated as ‘commercial in confidence.’ However, as it had not explained this clearly to the resident when she had asked for the information, it upheld this element of her complaint.
The landlord advised that the cracks had been monitored but accepted that the resident had not been advised of this and the outcome (that there were no concerns) had not been communicated to her. The landlord partially upheld this element of the resident’s complaint as it had not kept her informed.
The landlord explained the cracks inside the property did not mean the property was not structurally sound and that the resident may continue to see cracks that would need to be filled in future due to normal building movement. The landlord apologised if the resident had ever been made to feel that she had not been treated with courtesy and respect. It increased the compensation offered to £750. The landlord said it wanted to get the works done without further delay.
Following contact from a local councillor, the landlord increased the compensation to £1,250 on 29 March 2021 to account for delays encountered in the remedial works whilst the resident was decanted.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 30 March 2021. She explained she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports over the last three years, she did not feel she had been taken seriously and she wanted £4,500 in compensation. The resident explained that she had been decanted since 2 March 2021 to allow remedial works at her home to start. The resident raised concerns about the length of time she was to be decanted for, but this element of the complaint has not been through the landlord’s internal complaint process. As such the Ombudsman cannot consider the resident’s concerns about the decant in this investigation.
An email from the landlord to the resident on 6 May 2021 indicated that all outstanding repair work had been completed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s rear bathroom extension.

The landlord has a day-to-day repair policy which was approved by the board in August 2020. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the previous repair policy. The policy states standard priority repairs should be completed within 20 working days and includes repairs to internal walls and external rendering, painting and brickwork. Non-standard repairs are repairs that require additional time to complete and have a target of 40 working days. Non-standard repairs include works that require formal external procurement as per the landlord’s procurement strategy. The policy states that if repairs develop into more extensive works, the original target times may be varied and the resident will be kept informed.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that “where financial compensation is considered appropriate it will be applied in the following order:
1. Adjustment applied to rent account (if in arrears)
2. Rent free period
3. Flowers / gifts
4. Vouchers
5. Cheque”
The compensation policy indicates that the maximum compensation available is £500.
The tenancy agreement states: “the landlord agrees to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the … dwelling house…”.
The landlord initially noted an external crack between the rear extension and the main building during an inspection of the property 8 February 2018 when it said it would monitor it and repair it once it was satisfied there was no further movement taking place. Whilst this was reasonable, it took the landlord a further 12 months before arranging for the independent engineer to inspect the property. They then confirmed that the extension had “been subject to some outward rotation” most likely caused by the foundations for the extension being at a different level to that of the house foundations.
The landlord has not explained why monitoring for this length of time was necessary or why it then took a further six months to arrange for its contractor to return in August 2019 to the property to dig “trial holes” in order to produce a detailed foundation design to underpin the bathroom extension.
Following this in September 2019 the landlord informed the resident that the work would go to tender with three contractors before 4 October 2019. It advised the resident at that time that once the cost had been received, the works would be completed as soon as viable. However, the remedial works did not commence until approximately 17 months later on or around 2 March 2021.
Therefore, overall it took the landlord approximately three years to commence rectification works to address external cracking in rear extension after the landlord first identified this issue. Whilst it is reasonable to expect extensive works such as the underpinning works in in this case to take longer than the 40 working day timeframe stated in the landlord’s repair policy, the overall length of time taken far exceeded this timescale.
Some of this delay was due to factors outside of the landlord’s control for example the lack of interest from contractors to quote for the underpinning work when the landlord put this out to tender in September 2019. This was resolved four months later in January 2020 by the landlord obtaining a quote from one of its standard contractors. There was also a delay caused by the discovery of a shared drain when the landlord and contractor conducted a joint visit in February 2020. This required the landlord to apply to the water company for permission to conduct works in the vicinity of its assets which it did. However due to the Covid-19 pandemic commencing shortly afterwards, all non-essential work was put on hold, meaning permission from the water company was not granted until restrictions began to be lifted at the end of May 2020. The water company however then required the landlord to undertake a drain survey to ascertain the condition of the drain. As the underpinning works affected assets owned by a third party, the landlord was obliged to obtain the necessary permissions and complete checks before commencing works and therefore the delays caused by this as well as the Covid-19 lockdown, were unavoidable.
However, a further three-month delay was caused by the landlord’s contractor accidentally cancelling the order for the drain survey requiring the landlord to re-raised this in August 2020. This delay was avoidable which the landlord was responsible for. The underpinning works were then delayed again when the landlord agreed to undertake a whole house internal survey after the resident raised concerns about internal cracks in September 2020. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to postpone the underpinning works to enable it to survey the internal cracks, it took a further three months before this survey was completed by the independent engineering contractor on 10 December 2020.The landlord has not explained this delay.
As it was found the internal cracks were not “structurally significant”, later in December 2020, the landlord told the resident works to the bathroom would commence on 8 February 2021. Yet at the date of its final response on 16 February 2021 the works had not yet begun although the parties have confirmed that these works did eventually commence in early March 2021 and that these were completed in May 2021.
Therefore, whilst there were a number of delays outside of the landlord’s control which impacted the progression of rectification works, the landlord is responsible for the majority of the delays over three years up to when the repairs to the resident’s rear bathroom extension began. In its stage one response the landlord apologised for and acknowledged that the length of time taken to resolve the issue was excessive, however, it did not offer compensation or respond to the resident’s request for “rent reduction” – this is addressed further below under complaint handling.
In its stage two response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £500 in response to her request for a rent reduction and redress for the increased heating costs. The landlord stated this was the maximum compensation it could offer. This figure is in accordance its compensation policy which has a maximum amount of £500 however the landlord increased its offer to £750 in its final response in recognition of poor communication to the resident during the timeframe it had been monitoring cracks. The Ombudsman notes the landlord increased its offer again to £1,250 post final response. Due to the prolonged delay taken by the landlord to address the external cracks to the resident’s rear extension and the inconvenience this caused the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer an amount of compensation above its compensation policy. Whilst the resident is unhappy with the level of compensation offered, this amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which provides for awards of £700 and above in its highest tier. Compensation within this bracket is for maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the resident. On balance this amount was reasonable and proportionate.
It is noted that as well as the rectification works to the rear bathroom, based on the recommendations in the December 2020 survey, the landlord also committed to filling and plastering the internal cracks which was appropriate. Furthermore, whilst not obligated to do so, it also agreed to decorate affected rooms which was reasonable.
Therefore, whilst the timeframe taken to resolve the external cracking to the resident’s rear bathroom by the landlord was unreasonable, as the landlord offered compensation and also carried out the works it said it would do in its final response, this is sufficient and reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy consists of three stages and was approved by the board in September 2019. The policy states stage one complaints should be acknowledged within two working days and responded to within 10 working days. Complaints at stage two are investigated by the Managing Director and should be responded to within 10 working days. Complaints at stage three are investigated by the Group Chief Executive and should be responded to within 10 working days.
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 October 2020 before raising a formal complaint with it on 14 October 2020. The resident had to re-send both of these communications to the landlord on 19 October and 10 November 2020 respectively, as it told her it had not received her complaints. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord did receive the resident’s 2 October 2020 email on this first occasion she sent this. As the resident had expressed dissatisfaction about its service provided within this communication, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have logged this communication as a complaint and acknowledged this within 2 working days as per its complaints process. The landlord did not provide a stage one response until 23 November 2020 following her further communications and therefore this is evidence of it failing to adhere to the timescales in its complaints process.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s 1 December 2020 stage two escalation request until 9 December 2020 when it advised it would issue its stage two response by 23 December 2020. The landlord however did not then provide a stage two response until 21 January 2021. Whilst the landlord had told the resident on 21 December 2020 that it had put her the complaint ‘on-hold’ until the works to the property had been completed, this was not sufficient reason to delay escalation of her complaint for approximately 7 further weeks. It is clear from her communications with it at the time that the resident was unhappy about the length of time it was taking to exhaust its complaints process. Due to this delay and further time to escalate her complaint through the third stage of its complaint process, this meant overall it took approximately four months to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process. On balance, this was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage one response did not address all of the resident’s concerns that she had raised, for example regarding the behaviour by male members of its staff as well as her request for a rent reduction. Nonetheless, after the resident highlighted these omissions to the landlord, in its stage two response the landlord responded to these points, providing clear explanations in relation to these issues. It also responded to further issues she had raised in the interim including in relation to her request for copies of the reports from the 10 December 2020 engineering survey as well as from the surveys in February 2019 and in 2011. Whilst the resident then complained about not being provided with the full reports, the landlord gave a reason for not providing these in its stage three response which was reasonable. Therefore, whilst it could have addressed some issues earlier on in its complaints process, as the landlord has demonstrated that overall, it took reasonable steps to respond to all of the points raised by the resident, it acted appropriately in this regard.
However, due to the landlord failing to follow the timescales at stages one and two of its complaints process and because it failed to acknowledge this when the resident raised this in her stage three escalation request, this is evidence of a failure in the handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the rear bathroom extension.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

It took the landlord a prolonged length of time to address external cracking to the resident’s rear bathroom extension after identifying this. Some of the delay was outside of its control however even after taking this in account, the timeframe taken to provide rectification works was unreasonable. However, as the landlord acknowledged and apologised for this this during its complaints process, committed to completing the necessary rectification works as well as offering reasonable and proportionate compensation, it resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
The landlord did not adhere to the timescales in its complaints process and delays meant it took the resident approximately four months to exhaust her complaint through its complaint process which compounded the stress and inconvenience caused by the repairing delays. The landlord failed to acknowledge any complaint handling errors when raised by the resident in her stage three escalation request.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident £200 in compensation for failing to follow the timescales in its complaints process.
2. Pay the resident the compensation offered of £1,250 if it has not already done so.
3. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.