Sanctuary Housing Association (202003722)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003722

Sanctuary Housing Association

7 April 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. reports made by the resident prior to 2018 of cracks to her bedroom and living room walls and ceilings;
2. the resident’s more recent reports of cracks to her bedroom and living room walls and ceilings;
3. the resident’s requests for it to remove washing lines and bulky items from communal areas;
4. the resident’s questions about electrical works.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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.
Paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which ‘were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure’.
The resident has advised that her initial reports about cracks to her bedroom and living room walls and ceilings were made several years ago and that she was concerned about the landlord’s handling of inspections prior to, and during, 2017 as well as the actions of a structural engineer during 2018. These matters exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in July 2018 when the landlord confirmed the outcome of the May 2018 structural engineer report and concluded that the cracks were due to thermal movement rather than subsidence so it would not take further action.
Given the resident did not raise the matter again with the landlord until March 2020 and did not approach this Service until July 2020, two years after it had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, this issue is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Some of the events relevant to this issue have however been summarised below for context.
The other aspects of the resident’s complaint, including the landlord’s handling of the resident’s more recent reports of cracks to her bedroom and living room walls and ceilings, are within jurisdiction and considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder who holds a lease dated 10 June 2002. The landlord has described the property as a two-bedroom second floor flat within a four-storey block.
The landlord advised this Service that it has been aware since 2020 that the resident receives mental health support.
The lease agreement contains the following obligations:
1. the landlord to manage the estate and the block in a ‘proper and reasonable manner’ and ‘keep in good and substantial repair and condition… the main structure of the block’
2. the resident should not permit anything on any part of the estate which could become a danger, nuisance or annoyance to the landlord or another occupier.
The landlord has a ‘homeowners booklet’ that shows that it is usually responsible for repairs to a roof, external walls, estate and block lighting, outside pipes, shared entrances and passageways. It adds that the resident should not block shared areas by storing bulky items as this would be considered anti-social behaviour (ASB).
The landlord has a ‘home ownership repairs and maintenance’ policy that shows it is responsible for electrical fittings to ‘shared parts’ and the resident is responsible for ‘all repairs inside the home’.
The landlord has an ASB policy that shows that it will:
1. look to modify behaviour through support, persuasion and legal sanction
2. use early intervention methods such as one to one visits, warning letters and mediation for low level ASB
3. close ASB case files where no further ASB is reported for six weeks.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure where it is required to respond within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two) respectively.
The resident’s complaint partly concerns neighbours in her block who are also tenants and leaseholders of the landlord. This Service has not been provided with copies of the neighbours’ tenancy and lease agreements but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same, or similar, conditions apply as to the resident.

Summary of Events

The landlord obtained a surveyor’s report dated 22 May 2018 following an inspection on 18 May 2018 to consider reports that the resident had made of damp and cracks to internal wall plaster. This showed that:
1. there was hairline cracking to the resident’s bedroom and living room ceilings as well as areas above internal doors
2. some ceiling plaster had fallen away in the living room and some cracks by the chimney breast were 1mm wide
3. external wall inspections had established no signs of cracking to the front and rear elevations between the ground and first floors
4. cracking was due to thermal movement rather than subsidence or settlement.
The landlord issued complaint responses to the resident during April-July 2018 regarding the cracks and these responses showed that:
1. it referred to an inspection in August 2017 that found the cracks were deemed to be superficial but apologised that it failed to follow up on a recommendation for a structural engineer to visit
2. it forwarded a copy of the May 2018 inspection report to the resident in June 2018 which showed no evidence of subsidence or settlement and concluded that cracks were superficial
3. it advised the resident to get independent advice as it was of the view that it had investigated her claims and been unable to substantiate them.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 March 2020. It advised that a complaint about the cracks had exhausted its complaints process in 2018 so it would not review this again but that it would send a surveyor to inspect the block.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same date – she advised that a previous inspection had been insufficient and that earlier surveyor visits had confirmed there was a structural fault. She added that this was proven by her neighbour having cracks in the same parts of her flat.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 June 2020. It said the email was following a telephone call the day before and acknowledged the resident’s reports about her mental health. It added that it had previously had to cancel a visit to remove washing lines attached to service pipes (due to Covid-19), it would check whether a survey of cracks in her property had been done prior to lockdown and it signposted her to report bulky items to its estate services team.
The resident replied on the same date – she said that a few members of the landlord’s staff had told her in the past that cracks were caused by the foot of the block giving way and she had been ignored for 10 years. She added that she raised it again two years previously but a surveyor had conducted a flawed inspection and determined there was not a structural issue. She said she was looking forward to a new survey and washing lines being removed and would report the neighbours who had bulky items outside.
The resident advised this Service in July 2020 that the cracks to her property were structural and parts of the ceiling had fallen away. She provided photographs that she said showed cracks to the corresponding parts of her above neighbour’s flat.
The landlord wrote to the block on 3 July 2020 – it said this was a follow up to a letter it issued in September 2019 about washing lines erected outside certain flats. It advised that lines tied to service pipes, across entrances doors and windows and obstructing walkways and exits were of concern and it had marked these (with a yellow warning notice). It advised that the remaining offending lines would be removed during the week of 20 July 2020.
The resident advised the landlord on 16 October 2020 that washing lines and bulky items had not been removed. She said photographs were attached to demonstrate items like ladders, buckets and tools left in communal areas, reiterated her concerns about cracks in her property and suggested compensation should be awarded.
The resident asked the landlord on 18 October 2020 why its operatives had connected some electrical wires to her mains electricity a few years previously and said that she believed her service charges were higher as a result. The landlord replied on 19 October 2020, requesting more specific information about when this happened, but the resident said she only knew it was between two and four years previously and that it was for a communal lighting job.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns as a complaint on 19 October 2020 and issued a complaint response on 28 October 2020. It concluded that:
1. it had written to the block on several occasions to ask that residents remove washing lines representing a health and safety risk but Covid-19 meant it had prioritised emergency works; it apologised for the delay but said it would not award compensation
2. it would arrange a housing team to attend the block by 20 November 2020 to remove any inappropriately strung washing lines (it noted that it had no objection to lines that were safely strung)
3. its housing officer had been attending the block regularly since lockdown restrictions were lifted and arranged for removal of bulky items as and when they were found
4. it had visited a property the day before and found DIY items outside the front door of the neighbour but it was not deemed to be a hazard or fly-tipping issue
5. a previous complaint exhausted its complaints process about the possibility of structural cracks but this had concluded there was not a structural issue and it could not re-open the matter but it would ask its maintenance team to raise a new inspection of her property (and other flats if she could give their flat numbers).
The landlord wrote to the block on 29 October 2020 – it advised that Covid-19 had caused delays in it being able to attend to the washing line removals as previously warned but this would now happen in the week commencing 9 November 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 November 2020, asking for details about the electrical works such as the month they were done, what contractor attended (or if it was a utility company) and why they said they were there. It added that it would not be able to assist without this information. The resident replied the same date to confirm it was landlord staff, that they told her they were there for communal lighting work and they had drilled into walls and boxed in cables but she was not sure if it happened in 2017 or 2018.
The landlord raised an urgent repairs order on 15 January 2021 in response to a report from the resident of exposed wiring outside her property (the order was subsequently completed on 19 January 2021 and noted on 2 February 2021 that a follow–on was needed).
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 January 2021 – she said nothing mentioned in the initial complaint response had been done.
The landlord issued an update to the resident on 20 January 2021. It apologised for any delays and advised that:
1. it had visited the block on 13 November 2020 and ‘removed washing lines that either blocked windows and doors, or were across communal walkway areas’
2. the items outside a neighbour’s ground floor flat were not considered to be fly-tipping or bulky waste
3. it had considered the structural concerns during a complaint investigation in 2018 so would not re-examine this but it would ask a surveyor to re-inspect once Covid-19 restrictions allowed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 January 2021. She expressed continued dissatisfaction on the grounds that:
1. it was impossible that washing lines had been removed as she saw them while out exercising every day and she invited the landlord to visit the block with her to do the removals
2. she reported wardrobes and bookcases outside some flats as well as rubbish bags that had strong odours
3. she asked if she could install a metal cupboard outside her front door to store cleaning items if neighbours were allowed bulky items outside their addresses
4. she queried why the historic complaint about cracks had been closed as she disagreed with the surveyor’s conclusions and asked why an inspection could not proceed if everyone adhered to social distancing
5. she was told by staff who attended before the 2018 surveyor inspection that there was a problem with the foot of the building and that her cracks should be monitored but this had not been done
6. she added that an operative who changed a light in the communal area had left exposed wiring and she alleged that, during 2018-19, an operative had connected communal lighting wiring to her own mains so she suspected she was now paying for this through her utility bills.
The landlord replied to the resident on 26 January 2021. It advised that:
1. washing lines had been removed while staff were on site in November 2020 and lines in photographs the resident had provided must have been re-erected without its knowledge so it would ask the housing officer to write to the block again
2. it would arrange for its housing officer to visit the specific neighbour the resident had reported as it seemed that more items had been added than were there when it last inspected
3. it would not re-open investigations into the wall crack issue given its previous findings and its maintenance team was only carrying out emergency or urgent works so an inspection would not be raised but the resident could report this to its contact centre if the problem worsened.
The resident wrote to the landlord to advise that it had not answered all the questions she raised; the landlord advised her on 1 February 2021 that it would escalate her complaint.
The landlord’s internal records show that it attempted to investigate the washing line and bulky waste issues in mid-February 2021 but that this was made difficult due to Covid-19 related staff shielding.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 February 2021, asking her to advise if the cracks in her property had worsened since they were last reported.
The landlord’s internal records show it reviewed the bulky items issue on 25 February 2021, noting that it had written to a neighbour about unsightly items and could not permit the resident to have a storage cupboard as it would be within a communal landing area and send a mixed message to residents.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 25 February 2021. It concluded that:
1. it had asked residents to remove washing lines by 20 November 2020 and when it inspected that month, it found that all lines that posed a risk had been cut down but it acknowledged the resident had evidenced that some had been reinstated so it would take this up with neighbours once it was able to return to site inspections
2. it advised in October 2020 that items left outside a neighbouring flat did not constitute fly-tipping but the resident had provided photographs in January 2021 that showed these had been added to so this would be dealt with as a ‘day to day’ housing issue
3. it refused the resident’s request for a metal cupboard as this would be in a communal area and it added that one of the photographs the resident had sent showed a neighbour was storing items in an area specifically sectioned off for their flat so this would not constitute a communal area
4. it had contacted the neighbour about the items outside their flat and would address the washing line issue when it returned to estate visits
5. it could not answer the resident’s questions about comments made by staff prior to 2018 given it had already exhausted the complaints process in investigating these matters
6. it asked the resident if cracks to her living room wall and ceiling had got worse and to send photographs but it had not received a response to this
7. it apologised if it had not previously offered answers to all the resident’s questions.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 March 2021. She described the cracks as going from floor to ceiling and reiterated that fragments of the ceiling had fallen away. She provided photographs of hers and her neighbour’s walls and ceilings and queried why it had accepted the view of the independent surveyor instead of its own staff.
The landlord’s internal records show that there was discussion on 4 March 2021 about the potential for an inspection of the cracks. However, the maintenance department noted that an independent survey had already been done and the resident was a leaseholder so it would not be responsible for organising a second opinion structural engineer.
The landlord issued a complaint follow-on response to the resident on 10 March 2021. This acknowledged receipt of photographs from the resident and said these had been reviewed by two of its surveyors but they had decided that another inspection was not warranted and the resident would need to arrange her own private survey if she wished this to be reviewed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 March 2021. She said there should be consequences for neighbours who had re-erected washing lines, reported the same neighbour still had bulky items outside their door, alleged that the landlord had discriminated against her by not giving her permission for a storage cupboard and said she needed an answer as to why staff had previously told her cracks were caused by structural problems. She asked if an inspection would be done as previously promised.
The resident wrote again to the landlord on 17 March 2021. She asked for details of historic surveyor visits between 2011 and 2017 and claimed that the surveyor who attended in 2018 had come without tools or means of measuring whether there was a structural issue. She added that it was worrying that her neighbour had cracks in the same areas of her flat.
The landlord issued another follow-up complaint response on 18 March 2021, advising that:
1. neighbours who had re-erected washing lines had been contacted but it would not take legal action and it could not divulge further details for data protections reasons
2. a neighbour had been contacted about messy items left outside their flat and the resident’s concerns about other neighbours had been passed to its housing team but they would not be forcibly removed because there was no fly-tipping or hazard
3. it had to refuse the resident’s request for a storage cupboard due to ‘how the layout of the property is and the fire regulations that we have to adhere to’
4. the surveyors who reviewed the photographs of the cracks to the resident’s property that month had simply advised that the matter had already been investigated in 2018 and prior visits had not been full structural surveys
5. the independent 2018 inspection had established no subsidence and decided that the cracks were ‘a result of thermal movement’ and recommended they could be made good ‘with a flexible filler’
6. it apologised for previously advising that it would inspect again and said that this had been overturned.

Summary of Events after landlord complaints process

The landlord’s internal records show that it was discussing the possibility on 18 March 2021 of an inspection to check the electrical issues that the resident had raised and that it proposed this to the resident and raised a repair order on 19 March 2021.
The resident advised the landlord on 22 March 2021 that the communal electricity works were probably in 2018/19 and that she believed she was now paying for communal lighting through her utility provider as well as through service charges. She added that a repairs job a few months before had also left exposed wiring (which she had reported in January 2021).
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 March 2021. She said that only two flats had their washing lines removed as far as she could tell and the block was unsightly as a result as well as hazardous. She reiterated the cleanliness concerns about the ground floor neighbour storing items in the communal hallway, said she was shocked about the landlord taking back the inspection offer and accused staff of lying about the cracks.
The landlord replied to the resident the same day – it apologised for any inconvenience caused by the inspection offer being retracted but advised it had investigated the matters raised already so could not comment further.
The landlord wrote separately to the resident on 29 March 2021, advising that external electrical inspections had been done on 22-25 March 2021, finding ‘no connection into your property for the use of communal electricity, thus eliminating your fears of being charged twice for this facility’ and that the only exposed wiring was redundant broadband or phone wiring that she could contact her broadband provider about.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 March 2021, advising she had attached a video showing boxed-in cabling had been connected to her mains electricity and querying what this work had been for. She added that it was the landlord that had removed boxing in to leave the exposed wiring but she would cover it herself.
The landlord replied to the resident on 31 March 2021, reiterating that she could escalate her complaint to this Service and advising that the wiring issue had been passed to the local housing team to consider.
The resident approached this Service in March-May 2021 on the grounds that:
1. neighbours had been allowed to hang washing lines from communal pipes and the landlord had failed to take tenancy enforcement action
2. a neighbour by the communal entrance was being allowed to store items outside their flat and she did not know why the landlord had not asked the neighbour to keep these inside the flat yet she had been refused permission for a storage cupboard outside her property
3. she had been verbally told that cracks in her property were due to a structural issue
4. she had been told by the landlord that it would re-inspect but this had been cancelled and she felt the landlord was lying about the cause of the cracks
5. she was seeking answers from the landlord about exposed wiring outside her property and why it had connected communal lighting cables to her electricity mains in 2018-19.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 April 2021. It advised that it had visited the block on 19 April 2021, noting an improvement with washing lines but this would continue to be addressed and that the downstairs flat had been cleared of decorating materials so was now tidier. Its internal records also show that it issued a TORTS notice on some items on 20 April 2021.
The resident made a report to the landlord on 21 April 2021 that the downstairs neighbour had now left bags of cement and a chair outside their flat, another property had a sofa outside, she would arrange her own property survey when she had the funds and many neighbours had tied washing lines to service pipes.
The landlord responded to the resident the same day – it offered to consider the resident’s private surveyor’s report once she had it, advised the housing officer would pick up the washing line and dumped rubbish issues during estate inspections and that an item in the communal area which the resident had reported had not been present the day before. It added the following day that front porch areas were private albeit it would expect tenants to use them tidily.
The landlord’s ASB case file shows that it reviewed the issue of items in communal areas on 17 May 2021, noting the removal of some possessions but that it needed to keep the washing line issue under review.
The resident chased an answer from the landlord on 15 June 2021 to the video she submitted in March 2021 that she said showed external cabling connected to her mains electricity.
The landlord advised the resident on 15 June 2021 that it would log a new complaint about her housing officer but that it had continued to conduct estate inspections, arranging for the removal of items found in communal hallways, and that it would deal with rugs hung over communal walkways together with the washing line issue.
The landlord acknowledged in correspondence to this Service in July 2021 that frustration will have been caused to the resident by the commitment it made to a further surveyor’s inspection which was subsequently overturned; it advised that it would be willing to offer the resident compensation of £100 in recognition of this.
The resident updated this Service and the landlord in August 2021, advising that she had attempted suicide due to the issues she had raised in her complaint and that the landlord had only carried on with lies and inaccuracies.
The landlord issued a complaint response on 2 March 2022 – this was about service charges but partly answered continued concerns from the resident about electrical works. It reiterated that it did not have a record of completing the works the resident had referred to but said it would contact her to arrange for a survey to establish what the cabling was for.

Assessment and findings

Cracks to walls and ceilings

The landlord’s handling of reports made by the resident prior to 2018 of cracks to her bedroom and living room walls and ceilings are not within the jurisdiction of this Service. However, the resident began to consistently raise the issue again with the landlord from March 2020. The landlord’s approach to advise that it would not review the matter again was reasonable as it had already appointed a structural engineer who had assessed that structural issues were not the cause of the cracks in her property and the resident’s concerns about this had exhausted its complaints process 18 months earlier.
However, the landlord agreed in March 2020 that it could arrange a further second opinion inspection. When it next considered the matter in June 2020, the landlord was unclear as to whether the inspection had been done but it became apparent in October 2020 that it had not and the landlord reiterated in its complaint response that month that it was willing to ask its maintenance team to investigate the cracks again.
This Service accepts that March 2020 and the following weeks was a difficult period for landlords, many of whom were only completing emergency works due to lockdown restrictions. Given the cracks were an ongoing issue that the resident said she had reported over many years and so were not an emergency repair, it was inevitable that there was some delay in the landlord progressing the proposed inspection due to the impact of Covid-19.
However, there was a failure on the part of the landlord to follow up on the issue as lockdown restrictions eased during the second part of 2020 and the resident had to chase progress in January 2021. By this point, new national lockdown restrictions had been implemented and there was again an inevitable period of delay when the landlord reasonably decided that it would need to suspend the proposed inspection.
When the landlord reviewed the matter in February 2021, it asked the resident if the problem with cracks had worsened since she previously reported it. This was a reasonable question to ask given the landlord had already determined that the cracks were not due to a structural issue. The landlord concluded that as its structural engineer contractor had already made an assessment in 2018, the resident was a leaseholder and there was no indication that the cracks had significantly worsened, it would not undertake a second opinion inspection. The landlord’s decision-making process was reasonable as it considered relevant factors such as the resident’s tenure and the results of the previous survey and there was no obligation on it to re-commence investigations into the cracks.
However, the landlord had already raised the resident’s expectations that it was willing to inspect again and caused uncertainty on this between March 2020 and March 2021. The landlord indicated to the resident in March 2020, June 2020, October 2020 and January 2021 that it was willing to recommence investigations into the cause of cracks in her property. It was not obliged to do so but, whilst its eventual decision was based on appropriate factors, it could have taken the decision earlier and its delay in doing so caused uncertainty to the resident over a period of 12 months.
The landlord apologised to the resident in March 2021 for any inconvenience caused by the retraction of its inspection offer and further acknowledged this failure when it communicated with this Service in July 2021. It proposed to pay the resident compensation of £100 in recognition of the frustration caused to her. Given the landlord was not obliged to conduct further investigations into the cracks, its eventual decision not to inspect was reasonable and that Covid-19 contributed to delays in it reaching a conclusion, this level of compensation was proportionate.
In summary, the landlord’s decision not to continue investigations into the resident’s more recent reports of cracks to her bedroom and living room walls and ceilings was reasonable. It incorrectly raised the resident’s expectations over a period of 12 months that it was willing to conduct a second opinion inspection but its apology and the compensation it proposed (following this Service’s intervention) represented reasonable redress given the circumstances of the case.

Washing lines and bulky items

The resident made reports from June 2020 about inappropriately tied washing lines and bulky items in communal areas. The landlord initially indicated that an intended site visit regarding the washing lines had been delayed due to Covid-19, signposted her to its estate team on the bulky items and promised to follow up on the washing line issue. These were reasonable actions on the part of the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations on how rapidly it was able to resolve day to day housing issues due to the impact of the pandemic while demonstrating that it remained willing to co-operate with her on both issues.
The landlord followed up by writing to all residents in the block in July 2020 – it made it clear what types of washing lines it determined to be a breach of its standards. This was a reasonable approach to take and demonstrated that its focus was on lines that could be a health and safety hazard. However, there is no evidence that it followed up on this in late July 2020 as intended nor that it updated the resident. This was unreasonable and led to the resident making a complaint in October 2020.
The landlord apologised for the delay when it responded to the complaint in October 2020, explaining that its focus had been on emergency works due to the impact of Covid-19. It wrote to the block again later that month, reiterating its concerns about washing lines and requesting they be removed over the subsequent weeks. It followed up by visiting the site in November 2020 and removing lines that it established were still of concern. These actions demonstrated that the landlord was willing to address the washing line issue and put right its failure to follow up between July-October 2020.
The resident also complained in October 2020 that bulky waste items had not been removed. However, there is no evidence of specific items of concern being reported to the landlord prior to October 2020 that required removal and therefore no indication that it failed to respond to any specific concerns from the resident. Further, when the landlord responded to the complaint that month, it advised that it had attended to check the resident’s reports and did not establish that the items she referred to when submitting the complaint were either a hazard or represented fly-tipping.
The resident escalated her complaint in January 2021 but there is again no evidence that specific reports of inappropriate washing lines or bulky items were made to the landlord between November 2020 and January 2021. There was therefore no service failure on the part of the landlord during this period.
The landlord responded to the resident’s continued concerns in January 2021 by noting that some washing lines appeared to have been re-erected and new items had been left in communal areas. The landlord’s ability to attend the block and address these new reports was complicated by the Covid-19 national lockdown at this time but, over the following few months, it wrote to one neighbour about bulky items in February 2021, advised the resident in March 2021 that it had contacted neighbours who had re-erected washing lines, followed up in April 2021 when it noted an improvement with washing lines and issued a legal notice to one neighbour in April 2021, leading to the removal of some items. These actions demonstrated that, as lockdown restrictions eased, the landlord was willing to take appropriate steps to address low level ASB through persuasion, support and sanction as its ASB policy requires.
Around the time that she escalated the complaint, the resident requested permission to install a cupboard outside her flat for storage purposes. The landlord responded the following month, explaining why it could not grant permission. Its internal records demonstrate that it gave due consideration to the resident’s request and it was reasonable that the landlord drew a distinction between areas that were considered to be communal and those that were partitioned off and considered to be private to the neighbouring dwellings in question.
Since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, the resident has continued to report the washing line and bulky items issues. The landlord noted in May 2021 that there had been an improvement but that it would keep the matter under review – it is unclear what the outcome of this review was so a recommendation is made below in this regard.
In summary, the landlord took proportionate steps from June 2020 to April 2021 to respond to the resident’s reports of inappropriately tied washing lines and bulky items left in communal areas. There was a period of delay between July 2020 and October 2020 in the landlord following up on the washing line issue but a combination of its apologies and follow-up action during October-November 2020 put this right.

Electrical works

The resident made her original complaint in October 2020 about cracks in her property and the condition of communal areas. At this time, she began to raise concerns about historic works she said the landlord had conducted in communal areas that led to electrical cabling being connected to her mains electricity. Although this had not been raised by the resident prior to the complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed this concern within its complaint investigations, particularly after she chased this matter at the time of the complaint escalation in January-February 2021 – the landlord’s failure to do so likely led to an unnecessary delay in it providing answers to the resident’s concerns about electrical works.
Given the resident did not offer clear information on when the electrical cabling works had been done and by whom, it was reasonable that the landlord asked for more details from her during October-November 2020. The resident gave as much detail as she said she had in answer to the landlord’s enquiries but the landlord failed to inspect until March 2021. Although the landlord’s ability to progress the matter was again compromised by Covid-19 lockdown restrictions, this still represented an unnecessary delay, particularly given the resident made a separate report of exposed wiring in January 2021 which led to an ‘urgent’ repair order being raised.
This delay meant that it took the landlord two months (January-March 2021) to offer reassurance to the resident that the exposed wiring was not dangerous. It advised the resident that the inspection had not found that communal cabling had been connected to her mains electricity but the resident promptly offered video evidence to the landlord that she advised contradicted this conclusion. The landlord said in March 2021 it would look into this further but there is no evidence that this was progressed despite the resident continuing to chase progress from at least as early as June 2021; the latest evidence seen by this Service from March 2022 indicates that the landlord has still not arranged an internal inspection to establish whether the resident’s mains electrics have been connected to the electrical supply for communal lighting.
In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably in investigating the resident’s concerns from October 2020 to date about communal electrical works and from January to March 2021 about exposed wiring. The landlord’s failure to investigate these matters as part of the resident’s October 2020 complaint and January 2021 complaint escalation likely contributed to this delay.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress, following the Ombudsman’s intervention, to the service failure identified in its handling of the resident’s more recent reports of cracks to her bedroom and living room walls and ceilings.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for it to remove washing lines and bulky items from communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s questions about electrical works.

Reasons

The landlord raised the resident’s expectations during March 2020 to March 2021 that it was willing to re-investigate the cracks in her property and later changed its view and retracted the offer but it made an apology and compensation proposal that was fair given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord has demonstrated that it investigated and took proportionate actions in response to the resident’s reports of inappropriately tied washing lines and bulky items in communal areas.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in investigating concerns raised by the resident during late 2020 and early 2021 about communal electrical works.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failure identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her by the service failure in its handling of her questions about electrical works.
If it has not already done so, the landlord to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property to investigate her concern about her mains being connected to communal electrical cabling; it should subsequently write to her to confirm the result of the inspection, including whether she is likely to have incurred charges on her utility bill for communal lighting.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 that it proposed to this Service in July 2021.
The landlord to write to the resident to confirm the outcome of its latest estate inspection results in regard to any inappropriately tied washing lines and bulky items in communal areas it is taking action about; if it is not currently taking any action on these issues, it should explain why.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.