Raven Housing Trust Limited (202209028)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209028

Raven Housing Trust Limited

25 November 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repairs.
    2. Concerns about subsidence.
    3. Reports of harassment, victimisation, and intimidation by the neighbours.
    4. Request for a designated parking space
  1. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing trust.
  2. On 5 October 2023 the landlord sent a contractor to repair a hole in a bedroom at the resident’s property. The job was recorded as no access.
  3. On 13 December 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that there was a hole in her daughter’s bedroom that needed to be repaired. She mentioned that a plasterer had come on 3 October 2023 to assess the hole. Additionally, she expressed that she had frequently complained about subsidence at the property and noted that rats had burrowed into the foundations.
  4. On 22 December 2023 the landlord emailed the resident requesting a list of necessary repairs so that the repairs could be addressed. However, the resident did not provide a list.
  5. On 17 January 2024 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. This response reviewed the history of the bedroom repair and confirmed that the job had been closed without any follow-up work being initiated. A job had been raised in July 2021 regarding the cracks, but the landlord noted that a subsidence case had not been opened and apologised for this oversight. It offered £250 in compensation for failing to log the resident’s complaint.
  6. An inspection was conducted to evaluate the subsidence and other repairs on 14 February 2024. The inspection recorded a large, staggered crack on the hall and bedroom party wall. The resident mentioned that she had reported several plumbing issues with the toilet. The landlord confirmed that a CCTV survey of the stack would be carried out to check for blockages.
  7. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the response she received and escalated her complaint on 18 January 2024. She mentioned that neighbours had left notes on health visitors’ cars, which she felt constituted harassment and victimisation due to an ongoing parking dispute. Additionally, she was expecting a new roof because of leaks. She also stated that a toilet leak had affected her water bill for the past 5 years.
  8. The landlord responded at stage 2 of the complaints process on 15 February 2024. The landlord confirmed it addressed concerns about the bedroom repair, subsidence and rodents in its stage 1 response. The resident had since raised additional concerns regarding a leaking toilet and a roof replacement.
  9. The landlord clarified that the roof, which had been repaired in 2022, did not require replacement and apologised for not informing the resident earlier. Following a surveyor’s visit on 14 February 2024, works were raised the same day to replace the fill valve and duo flush on the toilet and for a CCTV survey of the drain to be completed. The repair to the toilet (and other repairs) was scheduled for 16 February 2024. Its roofing team would complete a loft inspection for pest entry points. Its surveyor was liaising with its insurers, who would initiate their own external investigation in relation to the subsidence.
  10. In relation to the parking and neighbour issues, the landlord referred back to a  number of previous of contacts it had had with the resident about these matters, attaching copies of these to its letter. The resident was re-offered the £250 offered at stage 1.
  11. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint and, as a resolution, for the landlord to address the neighbour issues and complete all repairs.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 41.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgment on the merits was given.
  3. It has been difficult to establish the full details of the complaint about the designated parking space as we have been unable to contact the resident to establish these. The records contain several references to designated parking bays and requests for a disabled parking space, which are somewhat unclear. Part of the resident’s concerns about the parking bay also seem to stem from disputes with neighbours. However, from the information, we understand that in September 2020, the resident submitted a claim for damages to the Court regarding an incident of alleged damage to her car by a contractor. Part of this claim requested that the landlord install a pathway around their designated parking space. The resident also asked the landlord to install a small fence to enhance safety and delineate the area.
  4. The Service has evidence indicating that a default judgment was rendered, ordering the landlord to pay £3,823.29, although the landlord was not ordered to carry out the works to the parking bay
  5. In 2021 the resident asked the landlord to complete the works to the bay she believed had been ordered by the court, stating that these would address a lack of suitable disabled parking bay for her husband. The landlord explained that it was not obliged to do so. In 2022 the resident complained that the landlord had agreed to put a path around the car parking space and designate it a disabled bay. In response, the landlord asked for further information on the need for a disabled space, but it does not appear that this was provided.
  6. From the information we have available, it appears that the complaint about the parking space was the subject of court proceedings (or could have been raised as part of those proceedings). As a result, we have determined that this aspect of the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be included in this report.
  7. In its 15 February 2024 final response to the complaint, the landlord said that to help resolve the parking dispute more effectively, the resident should obtain an assessment from an Occupational Therapist regarding her need for an additional parking bay. We encourage the resident to pursue this assessment to help resolve the matter.

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure addressed several issues; however, we have been unable to verify with the resident which of these issues are still outstanding. As a result, we have assessed the matters addressed at  stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, as of 15 February 2024.

Repairs

  1. For ease of reading, the repairs have been assessed separately.

Bedroom

  1. The resident expressed concern about a hole in one of the bedrooms and inquired about when it would be repaired. An operative assessed the hole on 3 October 2023, and the landlord’s records indicate that an attempt to complete the repair was made on 5 October 2023. However, there was no access to the property at that time. The evidence shows that the landlord did not arrange another visit to resolve the issue, which was unreasonable.
  2. In its stage 1 response on 17 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged that the operative had closed the repair request without issuing follow-up work, which is a failing. The repair to the bedroom wall was completed on 16 February 2024 which was a significant departure from the 28 days it had to book the repair once it was reported.  
  3. We recognize that this situation indicates a service failure on the part of the landlord and was likely inconvenient for the resident, however, there is no evidence showing that the impact was significant. Consequently, we have awarded £50 in compensation to remedy the inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing the hole.

Toilet

  1. The resident has expressed concerns about ongoing toilet issues for the past five years. However, upon examining the repair history, we found only one recorded instance of the toilet being reported, which took place on June 5, 2021, and was promptly repaired the following day. To ensure timely resolution of any maintenance issues, residents are encouraged to submit complaints as soon as they arise. This allows the landlord to investigate thoroughly with the relevant evidence. There is no indication that the landlord did not address the issue appropriately prior to the resident’s complaint.
  2. During the inspection on 14 February 2024 the resident reported an issue with her toilet. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that it initiated work to replace the fill valve and dual flush mechanism on the same day as the inspection. The landlord stated that a contractor was scheduled to attend to the job on 16 February 2024, but records indicate that the job was cancelled due to a lack of access. A second attempt was recorded on 29 April 2024, which also resulted in no access.
  3. Since we have not been able to confirm with the resident whether a repair has been successfully completed, we have instructed the landlord to contact the resident and complete any necessary repairs. The resident is reminded that she must grant the landlord access to carry out the identified work.

Roof

  1. In her escalation request, the resident expressed her expectation for a new roof because of ongoing leaks. In the stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that roof repairs were completed in 2022. This work included replacing the lining and renewing damaged tiles.
  2. The landlord apologised to the resident for not informing her that the work had been completed. After an inspection, it was determined that replacing the roof was unnecessary after the repairs. The landlord also confirmed that the planned roof replacement is scheduled for 2065 and offered an additional apology for failing to communicate this information to the resident. This response was reasonable.

Conclusion

  1. Overall, the landlord failed to handle the repairs to the hole in the bedroom appropriately and did not follow up to ensure that the toilet repair was resolved satisfactorily. Therefore, we have identified a service failure in the management of these repairs and have awarded £50 compensation, which is in line with our remedies guidance where the impact on the resident was minimal.

Subsidence

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. Once the landlord is informed of a resident’s concern, a suitably qualified person should inspect the property and raise any necessary repair work in a timely manner in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement.
  2. During the complaints process, the resident informed the landlord that she had repeatedly reported concerns about subsidence, which she believed was caused by rats digging beneath the foundations. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that the cracks had been reported in July 2021 but had not been referred to its insurance team for investigation. The landlord appropriately apologised for this oversight. However, there was a significant 3-year delay in assessing the subsidence, which likely caused worry and inconvenience to the resident.
  3. The landlord initiated an insurance claim and forwarded the available evidence to its insurer. In the following months, the insurance company arranged for its surveyor to visit the property to examine the reported issues. In September 2024, the surveyor concluded that there was no evidence of subsidence. We cannot assess the insurer’s actions or lack of actions to determine why there was a 7-month delay from the landlord referring the claim, to the property inspection. However, we would expect correspondence showing the landlord requested updates, which were relayed to the resident. There is no evidence that this was done.
  4. Due to the significant delay in referring the subsidence concerns to its insurers, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter. The lengthy delay in addressing concerns about subsidence has likely caused the resident some distress. However, the evidence does not show that the resident referred to the subsidence again until her complaint on 13 December 2023. The subsequent investigations found no subsidence, so the delay did not impact repairs to the property.
  5. Although the landlord apologised, it was not proportionate to the delay in resolving the resident’s concerns. As a result, we have ordered the landlord to pay £150 compensation in line with our remedies guidance for a failing that adversely affected the resident. 
  6. The resident expressed concerns about the possibility of rats burrowing in the property’s foundations. In its stage 2 response, the landlord took the initiative to commit to inspecting the loft for potential entry points. An inspection was scheduled for 16 April 2024, but it was marked as a “no access” appointment because the resident chose to postpone any work at that time.
  7. The property subsidence survey conducted in September 2024 found no evidence to support claims that rats were excavating the foundations. Additionally, the evidence shows that the landlord successfully completed baiting after the complaints process. However, challenges in accessing the loft above the resident’s flat were noted. To address any ongoing concerns, the landlord should consider reoffering baiting services if the resident indicates that the issue persists.

Reports of harassment, victimisation and bullying

  1. We acknowledge that the parking situation has impacted the resident’s relationship with her neighbours. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that residents are encouraged to resolve neighbour disputes or seek help from other sources, such as a mediation service. However, the landlord has confirmed that these issues do not constitute ASB and will not be managed that way.
  2. In her escalation request, the resident reported that neighbours had been leaving notes on health visitors’ cars and posting letters about parking, which she described as victimisation and harassment. The landlord had previously stated that it did not consider the notes harassment or victimisation. However, the landlord tried encouraging considerate parking by writing to all residents. This action demonstrated transparency by clearly setting expectations for respectful behaviour among neighbours.
  3. The issue appears to have significantly impacted the relationship between the neighbours, and mediation between them could have been beneficial. However, whether this option was offered to help resolve the situation for all parties involved is unclear. While mediation does not directly intervene, it can encourage the parties to address their differences effectively. Had mediation been provided, it might have helped everyone understand each other’s viewpoints and prevented the escalation of the matter. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response and said it should have directed the resident to additional support services to help manage the situation, indicating a willingness to learn from the experience. Therefore, this was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter.
  4. The information available shows that parking issue has been a persistent concern, creating problems between the resident and other neighbours. Evidence shows that the landlord has tried to address it through consultation exercises, sent individual letters to all residents in February 2022 and May 2022 and considered a parking management scheme which was not agreed by all the residents. Although the landlord did not provide a detailed response at stage 2 regarding the resident’s concerns, the evidence shows that the landlord and its solicitor have corresponded with the resident multiple times to find a solution.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord recognised that the resident’s complaint was not acknowledged within the required 5 working days and was also not responded to within the 10-working day timeframe. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 17 January 2024, 22 working days after the resident filed the complaint on 13 December 2023. The landlord offered £250 compensation for the failing and the inconvenience this caused. This was a reasonable response
  2. The landlord responded to the escalation request and issued a stage 2 response within 20 working days, which aligned with its complaints policy timescale.
  3. We recognise that the complaints process has been difficult for the landlord and at times confusing for the resident due to the various issues raised during the complaint period. Evidence shows that the resident received responses to several issues outside of the formal complaints process, which added to this confusion. Nevertheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to clarify how it addressed each matter and to provide the resident with supporting correspondence. Additionally, the landlord apologised for the delay in addressing the complaint and assured the resident that it had learned from the complaint. Therefore, we have concluded that the landlord offered reasonable redress to resolve the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding subsidence.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of harassment, victimisation, and intimidation by the neighbours.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 41.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s request for a disabled parking bay is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £450, comprising:
      1. £50 for the delay in repairing the hole in the bedroom and the inconvenience this caused.
      2. £150 for the delay in addressing the resident’s concerns regarding the subsidence and for the distress this caused for a prolonged period.
      3. £250 as was offered at stages 1 and 2 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
      4. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed, unless requested by the resident.
    3. Contact the resident to confirm if the toilet has been satisfactorily resolved. If not, arrange to repair within 4 weeks.
    4. The landlord has identified learning from its complaint handling and therefore no further orders are made in this regard.

Recommendation

  1. Consider re-offering to bait in the loft if the issue with rats persists.