Sheffield City Council (202200707)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200707

Sheffield City Council

24 March 2023

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 the resident’s concerns about structural issues and cracking within her home.
2. The landlord’s handling of an external door replacement.
3. The landlord’s handling of damp.
4. The request for rehousing.
5. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s handling of the external door replacement.
2. The landlord’s handling of damp.
This is because the evidence suggests the external door issue and the report of damp have been raised with this Service prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman jurisdiction:
1. The request for rehousing.
This is because the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
The Memorandum of Understanding between the Housing Ombudsman and Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) sets out the complaints that each Ombudsman is responsible for considering. This states that the LGSCO is responsible for complaints about:
1. Housing allocations under Housing Act 1996 Part VI.
2. The assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference.
As such, the complaint about the rehousing application is outside the jurisdiction of this Service to consider because such complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO. If the resident wishes to pursue this part of the complaint, she can contact the LGSCO directly.
It is appreciated that the resident requested rehousing and the landlord agreed to consider this as a partial resolution to resolving the resident’s complaint. This Service can consider the circumstances leading up to this decision and whether rehousing under the landlord’s decant policy was appropriate in the circumstances but it cannot consider the way the landlord, in its capacity as a local authority, dealt with the request for rehousing under the lettings policy, the priority it awarded, the removal of the priority banding after it made an offer or the appeals process.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a one bedroomed bungalow owned by the landlord. This is a secure tenancy that began February 2019.
This Service has not been provided with a full copy of the tenancy agreement. Within the agreement, it should set out the tenant and landlord responsibilities to keep the property in ‘good’ condition. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places obligations on the landlord to carry out certain repairs to maintain and repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord has published on its website “Our Landlord Commitments”. These are the customer service standards that set out clear priorities for the services it provides. The repairs related standards state:
1. It will offer a range of quality homes.
2. The repair will be done right first time, to a good standard and within agreed timescales.
3. The property will comply with all health and safety obligations, including electrical, fire and gas safety checks.
4. The property will be of good quality and meet the Government’s Decent Homes Standard.
The landlord has an internal decant procedure dated June 2018. It is used when a property is inspected and deemed uninhabitable. It gives examples of instances when it would apply this procedure such as fire, flood and major repairs. It states that this is to be used as a last option and all other housing options should be explored first. It states that its preferred option is for the resident to stay with relatives or friends. It also states that if the resident requires permanent rehousing then the direct let procedure should be followed that includes an internal process for recording each stage to provide an audit trail. It goes on to state that the Neighbourhood Officer involved in the initial process should be involved throughout and the resident should be contacted regularly to keep them up to date on progress.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy in which it will aim to complete a first stage (the investigation) and respond within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the response, it offers a review stage and it aims to complete this review and respond within 20 working days. It outlines that it offers compensation for any service failure in line with the Housing Ombudsman guide (Guidance on Remedies).

Summary of events

To provide context, the landlord has provided information relating to the property, prior to the resident’s tenancy start date. This confirms that structural concerns were raised by the Neighbourhood Officer in October 2018 that related to the resident’s home and the adjoining bungalow.
The landlord has also provided its commissioning request for a structural survey dated 17 October 2018 and the structural inspection report dated 23 November 2018. The report notes cracking throughout the property, although unsightly it confirms that major structural works were not required. Various recommendations were made, including filling of cracks and a CCTV drainage survey of the surface water and foul drain. Specific actions were noted for the CCTV survey as follows:
1. A detailed plan of manholes, drainage runs and direction of flow.
2. Any evidence of leaking drains, displaced joints and cracked pipe work to be recorded and marked on the plan.
3. Any evidence of tree root ingress into the drains.
4. Absence of connections of surface water drains into the main drain system, which could indicate a soak away.
5. Investigation of the connection of gullies using a micro camera.
6. A report highlighting conclusions with remedial recommendations and a quotation for the works.
7. One hand dug trial pit to be excavated at the junction of the rear and side elevations.
The report recommends that subject to the findings of the investigative works and any defective drains being repaired, a schedule of works can proceed. This details remedial work to cracks internally and externally. It also requests seeking advice from the council’s parks department with a view to removing the mature trees and dig out any remaining roots.
In February 2019, the resident’s tenancy began. The landlord has not provided any records to evidence the ‘fit to let’ standard of the property and so it is unclear on the property condition and whether the cracks had been repaired prior to the resident accepting the tenancy. The landlord has provided a generic ‘fit to let’ standard (dated 28 February 2023) that it should use to assess all empty properties, and this provides a checklist to assess the condition of various fixtures and fittings throughout the property which includes a structural safety check. As this is only a very recent document, the contents of any such checklist when this property was empty is unknown.
In May 2019, the landlord’s records show various repairs internally and externally to plasterwork, external brickwork and guttering. Appointment dates were given for individual repairs between May 2019 and July 2019.
On 24 May 2019, the landlord’s records show an order for the trial pits. The same day, an order was raised to inspect the drain using a camera and an appointment for 4 June 2019 was made.
On 11 June 2019 and 20 June 2019, the landlord’s repairs records shows repairs to brickwork/pointing, window casement and plaster repairs to a wall. These orders are given appointment dates of 24 June 2019 for the brickwork and 15 July 2019 for the casement window. Both orders show the order status as completed. An appointment for 11 June 2019 referred to ‘repair plaster walls’ and an appointment date of 20 June 2019 was given but the status for this job shows ‘on hold’.
On 24 October 2019, the landlord’s records show that it attended the property to witness a CCTV drain survey. It noted a blockage to the drain upstream of a neighbouring property and stated “waiting on full report”. A note also stated that “it wouldn’t envisage works to the drains have any structural implications on recommendations”.
The landlord’s records confirm that on 15 November 2019, remedial works were ordered. This was in relation to plaster cracks and pointing. The note also confirmed that following excavation of trial pits, no tree roots of significance were present and therefore these were eliminated.
On 2 March 2020, the landlord’s repairs history noted “see CCTV report – no highlight of structural defects.” It went on to recommend remedial works and an order to carry out works to tree roots. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the CCTV report.
On 19 August 2020, the landlord’s records show confirmation of a direct let due to structural reasons in relation to the adjoining property.
Between 27 August and 29 September 2020, landlord notes show chase ups between officers in relation to what was happening with the two adjoining properties.
On 30 September 2020, the landlord’s records show an MP enquiry was received on behalf of the resident. It referred to the state of the resident’s home and her distress about the situation. It referenced that the next-door neighbour had been decanted out of their home.
On 8 October 2020, the landlord’s records show internal communications between officers to establish the situation. There was a suggestion of getting an engineer back to look again at the property and notes that there would be delays as the engineers were not carrying out any visits at that time.
On 17 February 2021, for reference only, the resident completed an application for rehousing, and this was validated on 4 March 2021.
On 24 March 2021, the landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord’s call centre to request that someone from the Neighbourhood Team call her regarding the ongoing repairs to the cracks.
On 15 June 2021, the landlord’s records show that the MP contacted it again on behalf of the resident. Reference was made to the next door neighbour moving out and that the property was still empty. The MP expressed concerns regarding subsidence and the condition of the resident’s home. The MP confirmed that repair work was carried out in August 2020 and February 2021 to cracks that had been painted over and were starting to reappear. Areas of the bungalow were noted as concern including dampness to the bedroom floor. The landlord responded that it was waiting for the structural survey and would chase this up.
On 18 June 2021, the landlord’s notes show the request for a structural survey at the resident’s home and the adjoining property.
Between 18 June 2021 and 21 June 2021, the landlord’s records show that it chased up the structural report.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord’s records show that the structural engineer attended the resident’s home and the adjoining property.
On 8 August 2021, the landlord’s records show that it received the structural report. The following were confirmed:
1. The property had been subject to a previous structural inspection report of 22 November 2018, and it outlined the work previously recommended.
2. That a CCTV drainage inspection was carried out on 25 June 2019 to the pipework servicing the property which concluded that “the tree roots aren’t big enough to cause a blockage, but these will continue to grow and may cause a blockage in the future”.
3. It recommended a professional tree root cut, and a clean and resurvey of the drains to ensure there were no defects.
4. It was not able to confirm if the recommendations for the drains had been carried out.
The report confirmed that the previous structural inspection concluded that the property was suffering from slight downwards subsidence of the building’s ground floor concrete slab possibly caused by shrinkage of the underlying clay soil. It went onto say that this was induced by the dry spring and summer of 2018 and that desiccation of the clay sub-strata will possibly have been further exacerbated by the root water demand of the large mature trees to the side of the property. It confirmed that advice from the parks department was recommended with a view to removing the mature trees and dig out any remaining roots. It confirmed that the trees had not been removed at the time of the inspection. It added that:
1. On the balance of probabilities, it considered the large mature tree to the side of the property was the main contributor of the concrete ground floor slab subsidence.
2. It recommended another CCTV camera survey of the drains surface water and foul drains to determine whether mechanical root interaction had occurred since the previous survey and/or a leak drain had contributed to the washing out of the fill material beneath the ground floor concrete slab. It gave specific actions to be included in the survey.
To give context only, on 26 September 2021, the landlord confirmed that it matched the resident with a property, arranged the viewing and the resident refused this offer due to cracks being present at the property and issues with the parking and communal garden.
On 27 September 2021, the landlord’s records show that it had obtained quotes from specialist contractors for the underpinning works. An internal email from the landlord confirmed that a question was asked about whether this work could be done with the tenant in situ. This Service has not been provided with records to show the outcome of this conversation.
To give context only, on 28 September 2021, the landlord confirmed that it removed the resident’s rehousing priority due to the refusal of a reasonable offer.
On 17 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that structural works would be carried out. It explained that a survey would be carried out on the soil and sub-structure to commence the week of 23 February 2022 and that the contractor would contact the resident before they started work.
On 11 April 2022, after the resident had contacted this Service, a complaint ‘first request for action’ letter was sent to the landlord. The resident was advised to call this Service back if no response had been received by 3 May 2022.
On 27 April 2022, the landlord sent the resident and this Service its stage one complaint investigation response. It outlined the following:
1. There had been long running issues and it apologised to the resident.
2. Explained that there were several reasons for the delay, which were due to:
  1. Responding to the initial reports of cracks by carrying out remedial repairs which did not get to the route of the problem, and it became increasingly clear to be structural.
  2. During the Covid-19 lockdown, structural engineers were not making visits.
  3. The wait for several properties across the city to be identified to refer to the specialist contractor for underpinning as this was more cost effective.
3. The landlord recognised some failures and offered £500 compensation for not correctly diagnosing the problem. It referred the resident’s rehousing case to the team responsible for assessing priority.
4. The landlord confirmed that underpinning work was complete and that a small amount of remedial work remained outstanding.
On 25 May 2022, the landlord’s records show that the resident informed the landlord that she remained unhappy with the complaint response and requested a review at stage two of the complaints procedure.
On 30 June 2022, after the resident contacted this Service, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to advise that a reply should be provided to the resident by 28 July 2022.
On 19 July 2022, the landlord sent its stage two complaint review letter. It:
1. Apologised for the level of service received and the time taken for the matter to be resolved.
2. Confirmed that in the previous letter, it indicated that the underpinning work was complete but noted the resident’s concerns that the extent of underpinning may affect the property in the future. The landlord said it raised this with the contractor and they confirmed that, due to the limited access to the resident’s home, they were unable to carry out the full extent of the work as intended. However, they did complete work to the party wall and internally at the adjoining property as well as externally at the resident’s home. The investigations did indicate that previous underpinning work had been carried out. The structural engineer confirmed that the property had been successfully underpinned but said that nearby trees would continue to cause a problem if not removed.
3. It recognised that some internal work was still to be completed and that the operations team would contact the resident, noting access for a Saturday to minimise inconvenience and disruption.
4. It increased the level of compensation offered to £750.
5. It noted that, as a resolution, the resident would like to move and advised that a separate team would make contact.

Summary of Events after landlord complaint process

On 4 August 2022, for reference only, the landlord’s records show that rehousing priority was increased to Band B (support and hardship needs) for a one bed property and noted preference for certain areas.
On 8 August 2022, the landlord sent the MP an email to acknowledge the ongoing issues. It explained several factors had contributed to delays outside of the landlord’s control and it acknowledged the significant impact on the resident. It detailed these to include the requirement for the specialist contractor to be given similar jobs for cost effectiveness. Confirmation was given that work was now complete and the engineer recommended advice regarding removing the trees. It confirmed that the advice received was that there was no reason to fell the trees and therefore no work had been ordered. It also confirmed that internal work was still outstanding and went on to explain some difficulties with arranging access.
The landlord, in its response to the MP on 8 August 2022, highlighted lessons to be learned and how issues involving several departments and agencies could be handled better.
On 16 August 2022, the resident emailed this Service expressing concerns about the remedial works, that she believed these were a plug and patch over the years and she had to take leave from work for the repairs to be carried out. The resident’s view was that these were temporary works, and the landlord was wasting time. The resident expressed concerns that she should not have moved to the property in the first place as repairs and underpinning had taken place previously.
In the same email of 16 August 2022, the resident made this Service aware that the offer of compensation made by the landlord came with a waiver to be signed to discharge its responsibilities. The resident advised this Service that the adjoining bungalow had remained empty for two years and no repairs had taken place.
An email of 16 August 2022 from the resident to this Service gave a detailed note of defects internally and externally within the property. It made reference to how the situation was affecting the resident’s mental health.
On 26 August 2022, records show that the MP emailed the resident with a reply from the landlord’s Head of Repairs. It indicated that mistakes had been made and there had been undue delays dealing with all the issues. It confirmed that structural works were complete and the outstanding internal issues in relation to decoration were required in order to finish completely. The MP confirmed that they would leave it with the resident to make arrangements for the decoration work.
On 10 September 2022, the resident emailed the MP giving an update. She confirmed that on 19 August 2022, she had contacted the landlord about repairs and that the plaster repair to the lounge ceiling had been arranged for 27 September 2022 without her knowing.
On 2 November 2022, the MP contacted the landlord again, stating that he had written to the landlord on a number of occasions and attached the email from the resident outlining the above comments. He went on to say that the next-door neighbour was moved out two years ago when he started writing about the case, but the resident was moved into the current property even though the neighbour’s home had subsidence which eventually led him to being moved.
As part of the investigation, and due to the time lapsed since accepting the complaint, this Service gave both parties the opportunity to update this Service.
The resident contacted this Service on 21 February 2023 to confirm that on 1 November 2022, a visit was made to plaster the lounge ceiling. The resident advises that operatives said that “it won’t make any difference” and they filled the cracks around the house, some old (that had re-opened) and some new ones.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to:
1. Be fair;
2. Put things right; and
3. Learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about structural issues and cracking within her home

Prior to the resident moving into the property, the landlord was aware of structural concerns affecting the property and the adjoining bungalow. It appears that previous underpinning work had taken place and the landlord acted reasonably in obtaining a structural survey in November 2018.
Whilst the survey report confirmed no major structural works were required, investigative recommendations were made to carry out a CCTV drainage survey and remedial work to the cracks internally and externally. The landlord’s evidence suggests that the drainage survey was not completed until June 2019 (seven months later) and remedial works were not completed until July 2019 (eight months later). The results of this survey have not been provided to this Service. These delays were inappropriate, particularly given the resident moved in during February 2019.
The resident’s tenancy began in February 2019, but no evidence has been provided on the condition of the property when it was ready to let and whether it met the landlord’s ‘fit to let’ standard at the time. The current ‘fit to let’ standard of February 2023 includes a structural check of the property. It would have been good practice for the checklist at the time to prompt a check of the structure but it is unclear whether this was carried out. This Service expects the landlord to keep records of the ‘fit to let’ standard and its failure to do so meant it is unclear whether the resident should have been informed of a potential structural issue.
It is unclear whether discussions took place with the resident to advise her of the recommendations from the structural report and the plan of action moving forward. It is unreasonable for the landlord not to inform a new resident of ongoing structural monitoring and remedial works of their home, especially as this could affect the resident’s options on deciding to carry out works such as decorating.
It appears that there were other CCTV camera surveys in June 2019 and then remedial work to the plaster cracks and brickwork later the same month. However, in October 2019, another drain survey took place and it was not until March 2020 that it confirmed receipt and a review of the drainage report. This was a service failure as the landlord delayed unreasonably in assessing the outcome of the survey which made recommendations for further works that were not progressed.
Another structural survey was requested on 18 June 2021 and this report was received on 8 August 2021, two months later. Although some delay was inevitable due to the Covid-19 lockdown, it is unreasonable that it took almost a year (from October 2020) to organise this further review of the property and there is no evidence that the landlord pro-actively confirmed its plans to the resident.
When the landlord finally received the latest structural report on 8 August 2021, underpinning works were recommended but there is no evidence of communications with the resident about the proposed work until it sent her its intention to start work letter 17 February 2022 (six months later). This was unreasonable as the landlord again delayed and failed to communicate its plans to the resident. This will inevitably have left her uncertain as to how it intended to remedy the long-term problems she was experiencing.
There are no landlord records to demonstrate how it assessed the resident’s home under its decant procedure. There is therefore no evidence that the landlord made an assessment of the property or the resident’s circumstances to consider whether the underpinning works could reasonably be carried out whilst the resident remained in the property. There is some evidence of a record of the question being raised as to whether the resident could remain in the property but evidence of the outcome of this consideration has not been provided to this Service. This is a service failure of maladministration has the landlord cannot evidence that it made an assessment of whether the property was habitable or followed its decant policy.
Given the landlord had seemingly assisted the resident’s neighbours with a decant and the resident (and her MP) made multiple requests for consideration of a move, it is inappropriate that there was no assessment as to whether a direct let should be offered. Although it was reasonable that the landlord assisted the resident with a housing application from February 2021, it should have established whether the resident’s situation met its decant criteria.
The landlord did provide some redress to the resident by way of £500 compensation in recognition of the delays the resident had experienced. This was offered at the stage one complaint response and then it increased its offer to £750 at its stage two complaint. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to make a compensation offer, given the landlord’s failure over a few years to establish, and communicate, how it intended to reduce the impact of potential property structure issues and whether the resident met its decant criteria, this level of compensation was insufficient. It is of concern that it was not until November 2022 that internal remedial works were completed, four months after the landlord’s final complaint response.
Further, the landlord recognised there had been service failures and committed to reviewing how improvements could be made but no evidence has been provided to confirm the outcome of these improvements and it is unclear if any specific service improvements were identified. This meant that the landlord failed to demonstrate that it learned from the outcome of the case and therefore did not act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The resident first raised a complaint via this Service on 11 April 2022 and the landlord responded with its stage one complaint on 27 April 2022. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the complaint has not been provided. The response timescale was 12 working days, slightly over the landlord’s ten working day target.
The resident raised her dissatisfaction with the complaint response on 25 May 2022 and a stage two review response letter was sent to the resident on 19 July 2022, 38 working days later. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that it will respond to stage two complaints within 15 working days and if it cannot do so, it will by mutual agreement give a timescale and reasons for the delay. It is inappropriate that there was such a delay without any evidence of an agreement to extend the timescale or that the landlord gave any updates to the resident to keep her informed.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about structural issues and cracking within her home.
In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about structural issues and cracking within her home

The landlord delayed unreasonably in:
1. Carrying out a CCTV drainage survey;
2. Carrying out remedial works to the resident’s home;
3. Obtaining the second structural survey;
4. Carrying out the underpinning works.
The landlord also failed to keep records to demonstrate the ‘fit to let’ standard of the resident’s home prior to her accepting the tenancy, that it kept the resident informed in relation to the ongoing structural concerns and how it assessed her property in accordance with its decant procedure.
Although it offered compensation, this was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and did not offer sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord failed to keep to its complaint response target and did not keep the resident informed of the delays.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report and:
1. Clarify its position with any outstanding remedial work at the resident’s home. This should include the offer of a full inspection of the property and assurances of timescale to complete any outstanding work.
2. Give assurances to the resident and this Service of how it intends to proactively monitor the structure of the property.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1600 within four weeks of the date of this report, made up of:
1. £750 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its service failure in regard to the subsidence (in addition to the £750 already offered to the resident by the landlord through its complaints procedure if this has not already been paid).
2. £100 compensation for its complaint handling failure in recognition of not complying with its response timescales and the delay of 25 working days in total and for not keeping the resident informed.
Within eight weeks of this report, the landlord should review its record keeping in this case and advise this Service of its action plan to improve record keeping practices, particularly in regard to property inspections and assessments of resident decant requests.
Within eight weeks of this report, the landlord should review this case and advise how it intends to improve the handling of cases where residents report structural defects.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should offer to inspect the external door and damp if it has not already done so and advise the resident of its proposals to carry out any associated works.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation.