TBG Open Door Limited (202344461)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom first-floor maisonette with his partner and children. The property has a garden and an additional building made of concrete attached to the side of the property. The parties have referred to this as a ‘shed’. The resident has complained that the landlord delayed repairing structural damage affecting the property, shed and garden wall.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to reports of internal and external structural repairs.
   2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to internal and external structural repairs.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The response to structural repairs

5. The landlord delayed addressing structural concerns and failed to communicate effectively with the resident. It did not adhere to the timeframes set out in its Repairs policy and missed opportunities to take steps to put things right sooner. This prolonged the distress and uncertainty it caused the resident.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint at both stages in line with its policy and the Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have looked at

7. There were events that happened after the landlord issued its final complaint response. As these events relate to the resident’s original complaint, we have decided that it is appropriate to investigate events beyond the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s response of internal and external structural issues between September 2023 and August 2024.
8. On 21 September 2023 the resident reported that the garden wall was tilting and there were cracks in both the wall and shed. The landlord attended the same day,identified damage to the shed and the garden wall, and noted cracks inside the property. Its prompt attendance demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns seriously. Further,it acted in line with its Repairs policywhich requires attendance within 4 hours where there is potentially severe structural damage.
9. However, the landlord failed to update the resident after the inspection. This was not consistent with its Repairs policy, which says following an inspection, it will provide the resident with advice or raise further repair orders if necessary. The lack of communication would have left the resident uncertain about what action the landlord would take.
10. As a result, the resident contacted the landlord on 28 September 2023 for an update. The next day, the landlord raised an order for a surveyor to attend and assess the issues. The delay could have been avoided had the landlord raised an order for a surveyor to attend immediately after the first visit. This would have caused the resident unnecessary frustration for the resident.
11. The resident complained on 5 October 2023 and told the landlord he wanted a surveyor to inspect his shed. He was concerned it was a hazard, and he was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of communication. A surveyor attended on 17 October 2023 and found similar issues with neighbouring properties. They also noted large cracks insidethe property. Subsequently, a structural survey was requested. This was a reasonable and appropriate step to take to identify the cause of the problem and potential remedies.
12. When the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 October 2023, it apologised for its poor communication and explained why there had been delays. As the resident is a leaseholder, he is responsible for any internal repairs, including minor cracks. However, the issues raised may have related to the property’s structure, which would fall under the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord did not clarify its position on the internal cracks, missing an opportunity to do so. While it was reasonable for the landlord investigate repair liability, the delay was longer than expected given the potential hazards.
13. Additionally, itconfirmed it had requested a structural survey and committed to keepingthe resident updated, showing a willingness to improve communication.However, despite its Compensation policy allowing it to do so, the landlord did not offer the resident redress. It missed the opportunity to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience it caused by its poor communication.
14. The structural survey was completed on 1 November 2023 and identified that a tree was the likely cause of the external structural problems. The survey also proposed remedies for the internal issues. Despite this, the landlord did not update the resident, nor did it raise any repairs. Continuing a pattern of poor communication, and delays in completing repairs. Furthermore, it is not reflective of its policy that sets out to deliver an efficient and effective repairs service. Because of this, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 3 November 2023.
15. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 December 2023 and apologised for the lack of communication. It said that an internal meeting was due to take place to decide the next steps to resolve the issues. Although the apology was appropriate, the landlord did not provide a timeframe for the meeting or for future updates. This left the resident uncertain on when he would be updated, prolonging his distress and reducing his confidence in the landlord’s handling of the issues.
16. Furthermore, the landlord took more than 1 month to review the structural survey and agree the next steps after receiving it. This contributed to the overall delays in resolving the issues and was unreasonable given the potential risk of deterioration. The cumulative effect of the delays and poor communication caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
17. Despite the structural survey identifying large internal cracks, the landlord did not clarify whether these fell within the resident’s responsibility or required its intervention. This was a missed opportunity to provide a full response to the internal issues either at stage 1 or stage 2 of the complaint process. The absence of this clarity contributed to the resident’s uncertainty and prolonged the resolution of the issues.
18. The landlord did not update the resident following its stage 2 response, prompting him to contact it on 19 February 2024. He reported the issues had worsened, and he was concerned about the property’s stability. No progress had been made in the 52 working days since the stage 2 response, which would have reasonably undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord to resolve the issues. A total of 104 days had passed since the issues were first reported, exceeding the 60-day timescale set out in the Repairs policy.
19. On 21 February 2024, the landlord informed the resident a meeting had been scheduled to discuss the next steps. Although the landlord apologised for delays and promised updates following the meeting, it failed to provide a timeframe for completing the works. This was unreasonable given how long the resident had waited for a clear timeframe to resolve the issues.
20. Additionally, the landlord had already referred to a meeting in its stage 2 response on 4 December 2023. However, there is no evidence that it took place or what the outcomes were and contributed to the overall delays. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes were not operating effectively.
21. Correspondence on 19 February 2024 shows the resident questioned delays in involving insurers. It is unclear if they were ever involved or what the outcome was. Given the issues raised, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether this was a reasonable avenue to explore. The lack of clarity and follow-up continued the pattern of poor communication and would have added to the resident’s frustration.
22. The landlord visited the property on 28 February 2024 following the resident’s reports of further deterioration. Its repair records show that the issues were beyond any temporary repair. While it was appropriate for the landlord to re-assess the issues, it did not inform the resident what actions would follow. This further demonstrated the landlord’s poor communication and did not reflect an efficient or effective repairs service. After the landlord visited, the resident contacted the landlord for an update and told it there had been no progress since his initial report. He also told it his garden and shed were unsafe for his family to use due to the internal and external damage.
23. Despite the resident’s concerns, the landlord did not contact the resident until 16 April 2024. It explained to him there were delays in resolving the issues as the repairs were complex and effected multiple properties. While it is understood complex issues can take longer to resolve, it is important that the landlord provides regular updates throughout the process. This helps shows the landlord is both investigating and taking the matter seriously. In this case, the landlord did not take a proactive approach over the 6-month period that had passed.
24. It is unclear why, but the landlord arranged for a CCTV drainage survey to be completed on 11 June 2024. This was almost 2 months after it contacted the resident. This was an unreasonable delay given the ongoing deterioration reported by the resident and caused him additional distress.
25. The survey found no obvious defects, but it did note that the external issues could be caused by a nearby tree. This potential cause had already been identified in the structural survey that was completed on 1 November 2023. This means the landlord had been aware of the possible cause for over 7 months. It missed the opportunity to investigate whether the tree was responsible for the issues at an earlier stage. Had it done so, it would have likely reduced the time to identify and resolve the issues.
26. On 16 August 2024 the landlord told us the wall had been repaired but the shed remained outstanding. Further, it had instructed for a tree survey to be undertaken. While this was an appropriate step given the tree had been identified in 2 separate surveys, it came significantly later than it should have. Acting on the earlier findings could have avoided some of the delays in resolving the issues.
27. The resident has sent recent pictures showing internal and external cracks that remain outstanding. The landlord said workswere complex and that it was reviewing the situation internally to determine next steps. This included considering referrals to its Leaseholder, Major Works, or Insurance teams. While we appreciate the challenges involved, there is no reasonable explanation the evidence provided as to why it has taken more than 3 years to address the issues.
28. Overall, the landlord failed to act promptly on visits and findings on earlier inspections, risking further property deterioration. It did not to adhere to its Repairs policy or complete the repairs in a reasonable time frame in line with its obligations under the lease. The landlord did not show it considered the impact on the resident’s family who reported they were unable to use the shed or garden.
29. As a result of its poor communication, the resident contacted the landlord on more than 7 occasions between 21 September 2023 and 17 April 2024. Given the extent of the delays and poor communication, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to internal and external repairs. An order for compensation has been made in line with the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance.

30. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. Our findings are:
31. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
32. The resident logged a complaint on 5 October 2023 which was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day. It provided the resident with a timeframe for when it would respond to his complaint. This was in line with its Complaints policy and the Code.
33. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 10 working days later on 19 October 2023. Additionally, it provided the resident with information on how to escalate his complaint to stage 2. This was consistent with both its policy and the Code that sets out the landlord must respond within 10 working days.
34. On 3 November 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 6 November 2023 and provided its stage 2 response on 4 December 2023. This was within the 20-working day timescale set out in the Code and landlord’s policy.
35. Overall, the landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 and 2 complaints within the appropriate timescales. Therefore, we have not found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

36. The landlord was managing a complex repair but failed to follow through on its commitments, including providing updates and acting on findings in a timely manner. It is important that agreed actions are monitored and completed without unnecessary delays to ensure residents understand any associated timeframes.
37. Despite acknowledging its failings in both its complaint responses, the landlord did not update the resident at it had promised. It did not show learning or improvement in the handling of the issues, leading to repeated service failures.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord should maintain accurate records of why it has raised repairs to avoid future delays and confusion. The lack of notes on why a drainage CCTV survey was raised was unclear and suggests a gap in tracking and follow-through.

Communication

39. The landlord could consider any improvements needed for internal communication between departments to ensure it can monitor agreed actions through to completion. The landlord promised it would contact the resident after the stage 1 and stage 2 but did not do so.