Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202117869)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117869

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

21 June 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

1. The complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property following his report of cracking and possible subsidence.
2. This Service has also considered:
   1. How the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.
   2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a Housing Association. He has resided at the property, a 2-bedroom, ground-floor flat, since 1994.
4. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure, which outlines that it will provide a response at Stage One within 10 working days and a response at Stage Two within 20 working days. It notes that it will contact residents to advise them when it believes its responses may be delayed.
5. The landlord’s compensation scheme outlines that it can pay up to £160 for “medium” service failures and from £161 to £350 for service failures that it deems have a “high” impact on residents.

Summary of Events

6. Landlord records show that, on 6 November 2020, it raised an inspection order to “investigate possible subsidence” at the resident’s property. Repair logs indicate an inspection took place on 19 November 2020, with a diary note on that date stating, “visit done, order to be raised”. This Service has not seen further details of the inspection, the findings made by the landlord’s surveyor of the repair orders that were, or were due to be, raised.
7. On 21 April 2021, landlord repair records indicate that a further inspection was raised for its contractor to “investigate and report back finding the cause of possible movement, cracks and dropped floor to the flat”. A further entry on 4 June 2021 noted an order for its contractor to “carry out internal Pit investigation as recommended”.
8. On 16 July 2021, the resident emailed a complaint to the landlord. He advised he had been asking for “urgent care for the home…because it is deteriorating on a daily basis with large and dangerous cracks all over the walls and on the floors”. He stated that the issue was becoming “worse every day” and that he was afraid to live in the house due to health and safety concerns. He advised he was unhappy the landlord had not resolved the issue and that it had told him it would contact him regarding the matter on numerous occasions over the previous six months, but had not done so. He included pictures showing the condition of the property.
9. Records show the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint via email on 19 July 2021 and advised it would “look to provide a response within 10 working days”. It contacted him with a further update on 27 July 2021 and again on 30 July 2021, when it requested a two–week extension for providing a response.
10. The landlord subsequently provided its Stage One complaint response on 6 August 2021. In its response, the landlord noted the complaint related to apparent delays in addressing the “large and dangerous cracks” the resident had been reporting in his property since November 2020. It apologised for “any inconvenience caused” and outlined the following findings:
    1. Its Repairs Officer had advised “further investigations are needed to your home from a specialist contractor” and that a contractor had attended on 5 August 2021. It noted that “once (the Repairs Officer) received their report, he will be raising the recommended works to be done”. It also clarified that the resident had been advised his property was “safe for you to live in” while the repairs were carried out.
    2. It acknowledged there had been a service failure as the original request for an inspection of the property was raised on 6 November 2020 and “should have been arranged and any works required finished in a timely manner”. It reiterated that the required investigation had now taken place the previous day (5 August 2021) and that any identified works would be raised. It also advised the Repairs Officer would contact the resident to arrange a post-inspection of the works once they were completed.
    3. It upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded him £180 in compensation, consisting of £100 for “failure of service” and £80 for “time and trouble”.  
11. Repair records show a further order was raised on 15 October 2021 relating to an “extra cost for coring the hole in the (resident’s) flat”. It noted that its contractor was due to contact the resident to book an appointment.
12. The resident contacted this Service on 3 November 2021 to advise that, while he had received a Stage One response from the landlord, he had asked for his complaint to be escalated on 4 August 2021 and not received any further response. This Service has not seen evidence of the complaint escalation request. However, in his correspondence with this Service, the resident advised the concerns he raised remained unresolved and there were “hole(s) in (the) ceiling and floors”. He also advised he lived next to a train line and the issues were exacerbated “every time a train goes past”. This Service wrote to the landlord the same day, requesting that it issue a Stage Two complaint response.
13. Repair records show the landlord raised a further order on 10 November 2021 for a site investigation and “enabling works” to be carried out by respective contractors. It noted these were booked in for 12 November 2021. However, a further entry on 14 January 2022 indicated the same orders were raised again.
14. On 31 January 2022, repair logs show a further order raised to “carry out internal Pit investigation as recommended and contact resident directly for an appointment”. The landlord emailed the resident on 4 February 2022 with an update on his repairs, and the progress of his complaint, noting that “all works have been authorised and raised” and a date for the work to begin was awaited from the contractors. A further repair log entry on 15 February 2022 indicates the landlord chased the contractor for an update on that date.
15. Following further correspondence with this Service, the landlord issued its Stage Two complaint response to the resident on 18 February 2022. It advised it had issued a response at Stage One of its complaints procedure on 7 August 2021 (this Service has not seen a copy of a response sent on this date). It noted the complaint had been about “delays you experienced relating to the repair of your home” and that he had reported “cracks in your walls and flooring as a result of subsidence in November 2020” but that the landlord had taken no further action “despite several visits from contractors”. It noted it had upheld the resident’s complaint, awarded compensation of £180 and agreed to arrange a visit from “specialist contractors”, after which time “any necessary works following receipt of the (contractor’s) report” would be raised. However, it noted the resident’s escalation request advised the agreed actions had been carried out and he had not been kept updated regarding the progression of any repairs.
16. Having carried out an investigation as part of its Stage Two response, the landlord advised the following:
    1. It acknowledged there had been “further delays” in receiving a report from its specialist contractors and that, once it had been received (the landlord did not note when), the contractor had advised that an asbestos survey was necessary “as they had a query which required investigation” before they could continue with any assessment. It noted that “as a result, this caused further delays in raising the necessary works” but that, once the asbestos survey had been completed, the contractor carried out “a full site investigation and provided a report”. The landlord did not note when either action (the asbestos survey or the contractor’s inspection) was completed.
    2. It had “confirmed, approved and issued” “outstanding works” to another contractor who had contacted the resident but been unable to agree a date on which to carry out the remedial works. The landlord did not provide details on the work that had been agreed but advised it would “continue to work with (the resident) to arrange for a more suitable date”.
    3. It apologised for the delays the resident had experienced and acknowledged there had been a “service failure”, which it stated was “compounded by poor communication” internally. It confirmed that the complaint had been upheld and awarded the resident £370 compensation, consisting of £250 for “failure of service” and £120 for “time and trouble”. It did not specify if this was an increase of its previous offer at Stage One, or an additional offer of compensation.
17. Following its complaint response, repair records show the landlord chased the contractors again on 3 March 2022, being advised that the contractors tasked with the “enabling works” would attend in the week commencing 23 March (it is assumed this may be a typo due to being a Wednesday). Further records show the appointment was rearranged for 28 March 2022 and, after attending on that date, the contractor noted the resident was “rude and swearing at him” and that, after trying to return in the afternoon, they were denied access and “the flooring has not been re-laid”.
18. Repair records provided to this Service show a final entry made on 6 May 2022 which notes that the contractor was “of the opinion that this is not subsidence damage and that damage has occurred due to defective materials, design or workmanship and advise (the landlord) to carry out repairs to cracks by in-house contractor”. This Service has not seen a copy of the contractor’s report or further details of the repairs that were identified as being required.
19. Subsequently, the landlord contacted the resident again on 11 May 2022 to advise that, following contact from this Service, it recognised there had also been “poor complaint handling” during the time the resident was “within our complaints process”. It offered an apology for this and acknowledged that its responses had not been issued “within our own timescales” and that it had “not corresponded with you as frequently as we would have liked”. It offered a further £150 in compensation for its poor handling of the resident’s complaint, noting this was the maximum it could award under its policies. It advised it would pay this amount separately as it understood the previous compensation awarded had been paid.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property following his reports of cracking and possible subsidence

20. It is noted that the repair records provided to this investigation by the landlord are scant and lacking in detail, meaning it has been difficult for this Service at times to establish a timeline of the steps the landlord took, when it took them and what the outcome of inspections and repair appointments were. In particular, there are no details regarding the inspections carried out by contractors, the findings they made and their repair recommendations. There is also no clear log of the repair orders raised by the landlord, no clear information regarding when they were completed or what timeframe had been provided for their completion. The Ombudsman would expect to see much more detail within the repair records, which has made it challenging for this Service to fully understand the issues the landlord identified when investigating the concerns the resident raised and the steps it decided to take to resolve the issue. This is not appropriate. More comprehensive repair records would have enabled the landlord to evidence the actions it had taken to and the steps it took to resolve any issues it, or its contractors, had identified. A recommendation has therefore been made regarding this at the end of this report.
21. Repair records show the resident first raised concerns over “large and dangerous” cracks appearing in the walls of his property on 6 November 2020. Records show the landlord raised an order the same day for an inspection to “investigate possible subsidence”. This was appropriate, and it initially responded to the resident’s report promptly.
22. While repair records indicate an inspection was carried out (an entry from 19 November notes “visit done, order to be raised”) there are no further details regarding the findings of the inspection, or the orders that were due to be raised. In any case, from the information available, there is no evidence of the landlord taking any further action until a further inspection order was raised on 21 April 2021, when a request was made for a contractor to look into “the cause of possible movement, cracks and dropped floor to (the resident’s) flat”. Having carried out an inspection in November 2020, there is no indication the landlord raised the unspecified orders it had identified as being required at the time, and it was a further six months until this additional inspection order was raised. This was not appropriate and indicates that the landlord unnecessarily delayed in progressing the issue and did not manage the repair in a reasonable manner.
23. Furthermore, repair records show the landlord raised an order in June 2021 for a contractor to carry out “a pit inspection” at the property but there are no further references to this in its records until the same order is raised again in January 2022. It is unclear whether this was carried out in June and a subsequent inspection was deemed necessary in January 2022, or whether there was another six-month delay in organising the inspection. Either way, there is insufficient evidence within the landlord’s records to indicate that it was on top of the repair issues and managing them effectively.
24. It is noted that, in its Stage One complaint response, sent on 6 August 2021, the landlord advised the resident its Repairs Officer had established that a further inspection was required from a specialist contractor and confirmed this had taken place on 5 August 2021. While this indicates the landlord made some further attempt to progress the issue, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it does not adequately account for the now nine-month period between the resident raising concerns over the condition of his property and the landlord arranging this specialist inspection. This indicates further poor handling of the repair and, as above, its records do not make clear when it was determined that a further inspection was required and therefore how long it had taken to arrange, nor the enquiries it had carried out to reach that conclusion.
25. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this amounts to a significant delay in progressing the repairs, for which the landlord has not provided a suitable explanation, either to this Service, or the resident via its complaint responses. As noted above, despite records showing inspection requests being raised, there is no evidence of action taken by the landlord, or contractors acting on its behalf, between 19 November 2020 and 21 April 2021 and there was then a further four-month delay before a specialist inspection was carried out in August 2021. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged in its Stage One response there had been a “service failure” and that it should have arranged an inspection “and any works required” in a timely fashion, and it offered the resident an apology and £100 compensation for the service failure (it also offered an additional £80 for “time and trouble”). It was appropriate the landlord acknowledged this delay in its response, along with the inconvenience it had caused. It was also appropriate that it offered an apology and some compensation. However, the redress offered was not sufficient considering the length of the avoidable delays and the impact these would have had on the resident, who had expressed concerns, whether justified or not, over the safety of his property.
26. Also in the landlord’s Stage One response, it advised the resident that, now the contractor had completed its inspection, he would be contacted once it had received the contractor’s report and it would arrange for works to be carried out. Further orders were raised in November 2021 for a “site investigation and enabling works” to be carried out. While records show these were booked in for 12 November 2021, they do not include details of whether the investigation took place and it is noted that a further identical order was raised on 14 January 2022, indicating a further delay of around two months for this to be carried out.
27. The landlord’s Stage Two complaint response advised there had been “further delays” in receiving the report from its contractors and that, once received, it had been advised that an asbestos survey was required. The landlord’s response, and its repair records, do not make clear when the report was received and therefore when it became aware of the need to arrange an asbestos survey, or whether the resident was kept updated on these developments. Due to the lack of detail in its repair records, it is again not possible for the landlord to evidence that it handled the matter in an appropriate and timely fashion.
28. However, its complaint response indicated that an asbestos survey had been carried out and that a “full site inspection” had subsequently been completed and a report provided. It also stated that “outstanding works” had now been agreed but that the contractor had been “unable to agree a date on which to carry out (the works)” with the resident. The landlord does not provide any further details of when these surveys were carried out, what “outstanding works” were agreed or when the contractor had tried to contact the resident to arrange works. This is not appropriate and means the landlord is unable to fully evidence the enquiries it had carried out or the efforts it made to resolve the issue.
29. In its Stage Two response, the landlord did acknowledge the “further delays” in investigating and progressing the repairs and made an increased offer of compensation to the resident, consisting of £250 for the delays and £180 for the “time and trouble” experienced. While it was appropriate that the landlord’s response addressed the additional delays and it increased its compensation offer to take account of these, this Service again considers that the overall offer does not adequately reflect the length of the delays and the impact these would have had on the resident, and this will be addressed later in the report. While the level of award indicates the landlord considered the issues to constitute a “high failure”, which under its policy it can make awards up to £350, this Service considers that the award made does not reflect the overall delay in progressing and resolving the issue, which at the time of the Stage Two response stood at 18-months from the resident’s original repair report.
30. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, this Service considers that an award of around £650 (£450 for the delay and £200 for the resident’s time and trouble) would have better reflected the circumstances of this case and how the situation would have affected the resident. An Order has therefore been made to this effect at the end of this report.  
31. After the landlord had issued its Stage Two complaint, records show it chased its contractor twice in March 2022 regarding “enabling works” first raised in November 2021 which indicates a further, unaccounted for, delay in progressing repairs. While reference is also made to an attendance on 28 March 2022 by its contractor, during which it noted the resident was “rude and swearing” and denied access which meant that “the flooring has not been re-laid”, records do not make clear why the flooring had been affected or whether any attempts were made to arrange a further appointment with the resident to relay it. This is not appropriate and, in correspondence with this Service, the resident has indicated that this has still not been resolved.
32. However, its records do include a final entry made on 6 May 2022 which noted the contractor was “of the opinion that this is not subsidence damage and that damage has occurred due to defective materials, design or workmanship and advise (the landlord) to carry out repairs to cracks by in-house contractor”. This Service has not seen a copy of the contractor’s report, so it is unclear how it reached this conclusion 18 months after the resident first raised his concerns. The landlord has also not provided any details of the repairs that were identified as being required or further details of what the “defective materials” may be and how this may have impacted on the resident’s property. The language used in the landlord’s repair records is vague and does little to cast light on the issues it had identified. It is not clear if this report has been shared with the resident, but the comment that his property may have been constructed with “defective materials (or) design” is likely to be of concern. 
33. This investigation would have expected the landlord to be able to provide details of the report, so it could evidence that it had determined which areas of the resident’s property were affected by cracks, specific orders the landlord raised to resolve them, and a timeline for their completion. Overall, the lack of clarity throughout the landlord’s repair records and complaint responses is not appropriate and means that, throughout the period covered by this investigation, the landlord has not made clear the findings it made and the steps it identified to resolve them. That the landlord is not able to evidence any of this is not appropriate and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, along with the significant length of time taken to establish that the cause of the reported cracks was not subsistence (18 months from November 2020 to May 2022) amounts to maladministration regarding how it handled the resident’s repair reports.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

34. After the resident lodged his complaint on 16 July 2021, the landlord responded promptly and contacted him to acknowledge the complaint on 19 July 2021, in line with the timeframe set out in its complaints procedure. However, while it did not send its Stage One response until 6 August 2021, five days outside its 10-working day target, the landlord had contacted the resident to update him on the progression of his complaint and to request an extension until 13 August 2021. This was a good example of the landlord communicating effectively with the resident to advise him ahead of time that there would be a delay in providing its response, and it acted in line with its complaint procedures by doing so.
35. However, the resident has advised he then requested in August 2021 his complaint be escalated but the landlord did not do so, prompting him to contact this Service in November 2021. This Service has not seen evidence of the resident’s request and it is not clear how, or when, this was made. There is no evidence that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial escalation request. After being contacted by this Service however, on 3 November 2021, the landlord did delay in providing its Stage Two response, which was not issued until 18 February 2022, some 54 working days outside its stated target time of 20 working days. This was not appropriate, and the landlord did not act reasonably by failing to address this delay within its Stage Two response.
36. It was reasonable, however, that after the complaint process had been concluded and the resident had brought his case to this Service, the landlord contacted the resident again to acknowledge that there had been delays in progressing his complaint and providing its final response. It offered an apology for this as well as an additional £150 in compensation, separate to the rest of the compensation offered. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an appropriate step for the landlord to take and indicated a reasonable attempt to “put things right”. The level of compensation offered was reasonable in relation to the overall delay and inconvenience this would have caused the resident and is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in similar cases. 
37. However, the compensation offered by the landlord in relation to the delays in investigating the repair concerns the resident raised and its progression of the issue was not sufficient. While it was positive that its Stage One response offered an apology for the delay and it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the fact it did not arrange an inspection and subsequent repairs in a timely fashion had been a “service failure”, its initial offer of £100 (along with an additional £80 for “time and trouble”) did not adequately reflect the significant length of time (six months at the time of the complaint response) the landlord had delayed in progressing the matter.
38. It is also noted that, in its Stage Two complaint response, the landlord indicated that it understood the resident remained unhappy as agreed actions set out in its Stage One response had not been carried out. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this and appropriate that it provided an explanation regarding the delays caused by the need to carry out an asbestos survey. However, as with its repair records, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its complaint responses overall should have contained more details regarding the repair issues it had identified and the steps it was planning to take to progress the repair. In many instances the landlord used vague terms and language, not referring to any specific findings or individual repair orders and did not provide timeframes for actions to take place. This was not appropriate and, as outlined in the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, landlords should provide clear information regarding any agreed actions and a timeframe for them to be completed. That its responses did not do so was not appropriate and amounted to service failure.

The landlord’s record keeping

39. As set out above in paragraphs 20, 22-27 and 31-33, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there were a number of weaknesses in the landlord’s record keeping. These included a lack of clarity over the outcome of inspections carried out by the landlord and its contractors and any orders that were raised as a result of these, a lack of detail regarding when appointments were carried out and when, or if, work orders were completed. Due to the extent of the issues identified with the landlord’s record keeping in this case, the Ombudsman has made separate finding of service failure regarding this.

Determination (decision)

40. In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property.
41. In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding:
    1. How the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.
    2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

42. After carrying out an initial inspection, there was a significant delay by the landlord in progressing its investigation of the resident’s concerns regarding subsidence. Its repair records are often unclear and the details that are included are vague, meaning the landlord is unable to effectively evidence actions it took in investigating the matter and how it ultimately reached the conclusion that the cracks in the resident’s property were not related to subsidence but rather “defective materials” or construction. While it was appropriate that the landlord offered apologies for the delays and an amount of compensation, the amount awarded did not adequately reflect the length of the delays or the impact these would have caused the resident.
43. After the completion of its complaint procedure, it was appropriate that the landlord gave further consideration to the delay in issuing its Stage Two response and it offered appropriate compensation for this. However, it should have given further consideration to the importance of carrying out actions it had agreed in its Stage One response and, overall, its responses should have provided much more clarity to the resident regarding the causes of the delays, the investigations it had made and the steps it had identified as being required to resolve the issue. It should also have provided the resident with timeframes for when these actions would be completed.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

44. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £300 compensation (consisting of £200 for the repair delays, another £25 for his time and trouble and £75 for its failings relating to record keeping). This is in addition to the amounts already awarded by the landlord during its complaint procedure.
45. The landlord, should also, if it has not done so already, write to the resident to outline its findings regarding the cracks in his property and set out the repairs it has raised to resolve them. If any remain outstanding, it should provide the resident with a timescale for these repairs to be completed. It should also contact the resident to discuss the re-laying of his flooring.
46. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence that it has complied with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

47. The landlord should review how it records information regarding its repairs, particular when inspections and orders have been raised for contractors, so it has comprehensive and easily accessible information regarding its repair actions and can ensure effective handling of repair cases.
48. The landlord should consider reviewing the current range of compensation awards set out in its compensation policy to ensure that these reflect the impact and extent of the service failure identified on the complainant.