From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202434704)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202434704

The Guinness Partnership Limited

18 July 2025

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about subsidence and repairs.
    2. The resident’s complaints.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
  2. Between July and November 2023:
    1. The landlord raised 2 work orders to repair the resident’s boundary fence, and to address cracked plaster in the property on 10 July 2023. The resident contacted the landlord about the repairs on at least 7 occasions between July and September 2023 and expressed concern that the cracks were worsening. The landlord’s records indicate that the fence repair was rearranged approximately 5 times, with 1 no access appointment.
    2. The landlord completed an inspection on 9 October 2023 and detailed the work needed to the fence, as well as the need to complete a CCTV survey of the drains to assess for possible causes of subsidence. The resident chased the work on 19 October and 10 November 2023.
  3. The resident contacted her MP in November 2023 regarding outstanding fence repairs, cracks, and subsidence. She noted that there were cracks in all rooms, all windows had blown, and the fence repair was rearranged approximately 7 times. The landlord responded to the MP on 5 December 2023 and provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 20 December 2023. It recognised that she had reported cracks in the walls and ceilings due to subsidence, and concerns about her fencing in July 2023, and it failed to progress the repairs. It had inspected and raised works which were due to begin on 5 January 2024. It offered £250 compensation for the delays which the resident accepted at the time.
  4. Between January and November 2024:
    1. The landlord’s contractor informed it on 20 February that it had completed internal and external work to remedy the pointing and cracks, including around the windows, fit “tell-tales” to monitor cracks, and work to the fence. The resident chased the work on 1 March, and the landlord raised an order for further pointing on 13 March. The resident chased work in March and April.
    2. Operatives attended on 1 May and said they could not complete work and recommended a structural survey due to excessive movement. The landlord passed the mater to its building insurer on 13 May due to movement from the ground level up to the eaves.
    3. The insurer set out a plan of action to the landlord on 30 May following an inspection. They believed the damage was due to changes in the clay soil below the property linked to a nearby tree. They needed to complete further ground investigations to establish what was needed to stabilise the property. Following this, the repairs could be completed. They did not believe the damage made the property unsuitable to live in. They anticipated completing mitigation and monitoring phases by May 2025, and finalising the claim by June 2025.
    4. The resident continued to chase updates and the outcomes of visits to the property between June and September. In July, she noted that the cracks were getting worse. She has explained that monitors were fitted in August 2024. In September, she asked if there was a plan in place to remedy the cracks. She also asked for a point of contact.
    5. On 23 September, the landlord’s insurance team asked colleagues to contact the resident to remove a small tree next to the property and noted that a larger tree that found to be causing the problems was owned by the local authority. The insurer was in communication with the local authority regarding the tree and would likely need further evidence into the winter months to support their request for the tree to be removed. They clarified that once the tree works were complete, and the property was stable, the repairs could be carried out.
    6. The resident continued to chase updates and raise concerns on at least 6 occasions between September and November. The primary concerns related to large gaps in the brickwork and around windows, and the safety of the property. She asked for call backs and a point of contact.
    7. The landlord was due to replace the windows in the property from November 2024 as part of a planned programme of works. However, operatives reported concerns about removing the current windows due to the extent of cracking.
  5. The landlord addressed a formal complaint from the resident through its complaints process between 22 November 2024 and 27 January 2025. In her complaint and escalation request, she said:
    1. She was unhappy with the length of time taken to complete subsidence repairs and the lack of communication from the landlord. She said no one had updated her and later added that she had made approximately 60 calls since July 2023 and wanted it to provide a point of contact.
    2. A window surveyor had said that the windows would not be replaced (as part of planned maintenance works) due to the subsidence issues and she wanted clarity on whether it would complete the work.
    3. She was unhappy with the initial level of compensation offered and wanted it to consider her loss of earnings as she needed to be at home for monitoring appointments.
    4. She later reported damp and mould due to water damage and drafts through the cracks in the walls and wanted confirmation that the property was currently fit to live in.
  6. Within the landlord’s complaint responses on 19 December 2024 and 27 January 2025:
    1. It explained the scope of its investigation focused on the period between 20 December 2023, when it addressed her previous complaint, and 14 May 2024, when it referred the subsidence matters to its insurer. It said it was unable to investigate matters it had previously considered, or comment on insurance investigations through its complaints process.
    2. It said it completed some repairs from January 2024 but had concerns about whether its contractors had completed the work on 20 February 2024. Its poor internal communication meant that it did not raise further work until 13 March 2024, and they did not attend until 1 May 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
    3. It noted that contractors found excessive movement on 1 May 2024, and it passed the matter to its insurers on 14 May 2024. It recognised that, had it attended to the repairs earlier, it may have started the insurance process sooner. It upheld the complaint based on the significant repair delays.
    4. It did not have a timescale for remedial work at the property and its insurer was still in the process of arranging a third-party tree removal. It said work to the property could not progress until the tree was removed, and it had confirmed the property was stable. The current monitoring assisted in providing evidence to support the removal of the tree. It apologised that this was not currently within its control and said its insurance team were working to speed up the process. It confirmed that it would arrange to store replacement windows until they could be installed. It asked the loss adjuster to keep her updated on the progress and provided the details of the insurance manager.
    5. It noted 5 occasions between February and October 2024 where the resident had asked for an update, but it failed to respond. It apologised for the frustration caused. It later recognised her concern that she had called over 60 times since July 2023, but said its investigation focused on the period between December 2023 and May 2024.
    6. It recognised that it did not log the repair when she made it aware of damage due to water ingress from cracks in the brickwork, and gaps around the windows in December 2024. It assessed the repairs on 23 January 2025 and would complete them within 20 working days.
    7. It recognised that it failed to acknowledge, extend, or respond to the complaint at stage 1 within its policy timescales. It detailed points of learning from the complaint and the steps it was taking to improve its handling of repairs and complaints.
    8. It explained that it did not compensate residents for loss of earnings as occupancy agreements require them to provide access for repairs. It offered compensation where something had gone wrong and found that its previous offer did not fully recognise how the situation had impacted her. It also provided feedback to its repairs team and said it would contact the resident within 10 working days. It said its insurer would provide an update on the subsidence issues as soon as they had news. It provided a copy of a letter from the insurer stating that the property was currently fit to live in.
    9. It apologised for the resident’s overall experience and the distress caused. It offered £450 compensation comprised of; £100 for its poor communication, £100 for its poor complaint handling, and £250 to recognise the time spent pursuing the matter and inconvenience caused by the delays.

Events following the complaint

  1. The resident referred her complaint to us in January 2025 as she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered in view of the delay, time off work for appointments, and additional energy usage to heat the property due to cracks in the brickwork and around windows. She was concerned that the subsidence related repairs would not be done before the winter months and about the property temperature in view of the repairs needed. She added that there was mould around all windows, and she was worried about the safety of the bedroom windows, including her son’s, which she could not open safely.
  2. The resident continued to pursue her concerns with the landlord directly regarding her son’s bedroom window and repairs. The landlord’s records indicate that it passed the resident’s concerns to its insurer to complete temporary repairs in relation to the subsidence. They indicate that it replaced her son’s bedroom window on 21 May 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her communication to us and the landlord, the resident raised concerns about the condition of the windows, especially the safety of her son’s bedroom window. While her concerns about the window replacement programme formed part of the complaint, she did not raise concerns about specific windows during the complaint we are considering. We note that the landlord arranged to replace a bedroom window as requested in May 2025. If the resident remains concerned at the landlord’s handling of this matter, she may wish to raise a separate complaint to the landlord in the first instance.
  2. As part of her communication to us, the resident also raised concern about damp and cold temperatures in the property due to the cracks, and she asked for a rent reduction, or an allowance toward the additional heating costs. We note that the resident made the landlord aware of damp and mould in her stage 2 escalation on 20 December 2024. However, her concerns about cold temperatures and the cost of heating did not form part of the complaint to the landlord. We have nonetheless included a recommendation below for the landlord to address this.
  3. The resident first reported concerns regarding subsidence in July 2023 and the landlord initially responded to a complaint regarding this at stage 1 of its complaints process on 20 December 2023. This complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure at stage 2. However, there were complaint handling failures, and we have seen evidence to support that the landlord had the opportunity to escalate this complaint through its complaints process. We have therefore considered events from July 2023.
  4. The landlord referred the subsidence concerns to its insurer in May 2024 for them to monitor and investigate. We can only consider the landlord’s actions in responding to the resident’s concerns as we do not have jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurer. As such, the investigation will focus on whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns rather than any specific actions of the insurer.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for the maintenance of the structure of the property, including walls, major plastering, doors, windows, and boundary walls and fences. Residents are generally responsible for repairing minor plaster cracks, dividing fences between 2 of its properties, and maintaining trees and bushes.
  2. The landlord would complete or make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. It would complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. It replaces items such as windows as part of a planned maintenance programmes over a given financial year. The landlord does not have a specific policy for subsidence but holds buildings insurance to cover buildings against structural damage such as subsidence.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2-stage formal process. At stage 1, it aims to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within a further 20 working days. It there is likely to be a delay, it should contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay, and provide a new complaint response timeframe. It would not consider complaints that it had previously considered through its complaints process or matters that relate to an ongoing, or possible, insurance claim under its complaints policy.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it does not pay compensation for loss of earnings. It would consider missed appointments as part of any compensation for a service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence, and repairs

  1. The resident experienced cracks in the property from at least as early as March 2023, and the landlord has confirmed that the matter remains unresolved as of July 2025, with its insurance claim ongoing. She also experienced delays with a fence repair between July 2023 and February 2024.
  2. Within its responses to the resident, the landlord recognised that it failed to progress initial repairs and a delay in referring the subsidence issues to its insurer. It also recognised that it had failed to communicate on 5 occasions. It offered £250 for its initial handling of fence and crack repairs, and £350 for failings in its subsequent handling of the matter between December 2023 and May 2024, when it passed the matter to its insurer. We have considered the landlord’s handling of her reports at various stages below.
  3. We note that structural movement of a building due to subsidence can take time to investigate and diagnose. A landlord would need to monitor cracks over time, sometimes over multiple seasons and changing conditions, to diagnose the cause and effectively stabilise the property. We understand that such cases may be challenging for landlords to resolve, and that repairs may exceed the usual timeframes. However, in such circumstances effective coordination, oversight and good communication with residents are key.

The landlord’s initial handling of fence and subsidence repairs prior to January 2024

  1. The landlord did not dispute that there were delays following the resident’s reports of cracks and a fence repair on 10 July 2023. The landlord’s records do not provide sufficient details about the dates of appointments. However, the resident reported at least 6 failed appointments for the fence between July and November, and it did not attend to inspect the cracks until 9 October 2023. She also raised concerns that it did not communicate with her.
  2. It is evident that the landlord did not have suitable oversight of the works. It did not progress works following the appointment on 9 October 2023 which recommended that it survey the drains to establish the cause of subsidence. Despite being aware of subsidence, it also failed to put suitable monitoring equipment in place to determine the extent of movement to the brickwork. It explained that this was due to a change in its repairs manager for which it apologised. It acted reasonably in response to the MP enquiry and complaint by recognising that it failed to progress work and apologising for the inconvenience caused. It also arranged to inspect the work needed on 13 December 2023 and arranged to start work by 5 January 2024.
  3. The landlord’s offer of £250 compensation at this stage went some way to recognise the inconvenience, time, and trouble the resident spent pursuing her concerns. While we do not have a clear completion date for the work, we note that contractors reported completing works to the pointing, cracks, and fencing prior to 20 February 2024. The resident did not continue to pursue her concerns related to the fence and we have assumed that it put this right at the time.

The landlord’s handling of subsidence from December 2023

  1. Despite contractors informing the landlord that they had completed work to address the pointing and cracks prior to 20 February 2024, it is evident that the landlord did not believe they had completed the work in full. It has not disputed that poor internal communication led to a delay in it raising additional work until 13 March 2024, and that the contractors did not attend until 1 May 2024. It has acted reasonably by recognising this as a failing and apologising for the inconvenience caused within its complaint responses.
  2. It is of concern that the landlord has not provided evidence to show that the drain survey took place despite the resident chasing this in February and March 2024. The landlord’s internal records show that it had asked for dates of attendance and the findings as part of its complaint investigations but did not receive a response. The lack of clear information highlights faults in the landlord’s record keeping and information management. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord sought to diagnose the cause or extent of the subsidence before arranging remedial work which was a failing.
  3. The landlord acted reasonably by referring the subsidence issues and structural movement of the property to its building insurer on 13 May 2024 following contractor’s reports of “excessive movement” on 1 May 2024. It acted reasonably within its complaint responses by recognising that the delay in arranging the remedial works meant that it did not refer the matter to its insurer at an earlier stage.
  4. Between February and May 2024, we have seen evidence to show that the resident pursued an update or chased repairs on at least 5 occasions. These included “missed calls” from the resident referenced in the landlord’s internal communication on 16 April 2024. The landlord has somewhat acknowledged communication failings within its responses to the resident.
  5. However, its responses were contradictory; it recognised 2 occasions in July and October 2024 where it failed to respond to the resident’s requests for updates but said that it was only considering events between 20 December 2023 and 14 May 2024. This was likely to cause confusion to the resident and make her feel that the landlord had not fully addressed her concerns. We have considered the landlord’s communication with the resident after May 2024 in more detail below.

The landlord’s handling of subsidence and repairs from May 2024

  1. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the property and communicating effectively with residents. We understand that insurance claims can take time as the insurer would want to satisfy itself of the validity of the claim and costs, and have the claim assessed by loss adjusters. As set out above, we do not have jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurer but can comment on the landlord’s actions. The landlord would need to wait for the insurers’ approval before acting, or risk invalidating the claim.
  2. While the resident may have been aware that the landlord’s insurers were involved from May 2025, as they completed an inspection, we have not seen that the landlord clearly explained the insurance process or effectively managed her expectations on how long it expected the subsidence investigations to take. The insurer informed it of the expected timescales on 30 May 2024. They also said that they did not expect the issues to make the property uninhabitable but asked it to contact them immediately if the situation changed. Despite making it aware that they did not expect to be able to begin repairs until around March to May 2025, after a mitigation and monitoring period, we have not seen clear evidence to show that the landlord informed the resident of these timescales, which was a failing.
  3. Where a landlord refers a repair matter to a building insurer to investigate, we would expect to see evidence to show that it still provided regular updates to a resident and explained any limitations it faced. It should ensure that the resident is not unfairly impacted or inconvenienced by its decision to progress a claim via insurance. It would also be appropriate for it to provide a point of contact to a resident rather than rely on its insurer to offer updates as the claim is ultimately between the landlord and the insurer, rather than the resident. The landlord has not demonstrated that either it, or its insurer, updated the resident, or that it had clear oversight or responsibility for the situation.
  4. We have seen limited evidence of the specific actions taken by the landlord’s insurer in relation to the subsidence. The resident has said they put monitors in place in August 2024, and the landlord’s records indicate that they believed the subsidence to be caused by a nearby tree from September 2024. We understand that subsidence involving trees and tree roots would require monitoring over several seasons to evidence that the tree is the cause of movement. While the resident had some knowledge of the need to monitor the cracks over a significant time period, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not update the resident on the progress of the claim or communicate with her effectively once it referred the matter to its insurer in May 2024.
  5. The landlord’s contact records are limited, with a large, unexplained, gap in communication logs between March and October 2024. This indicates that staff did not keep a clear record of communication with the resident during this period. Other internal records between staff show that she and her partner had called during this period, demonstrating that it has not fully recognised its communication failures.
  6. The landlord’s internal records indicate that staff did not have clear information about the work, or insurance claim. Following the resident’s request for an update and report that cracks were worse on 3 July 2024, it queried the progress of the previous works internally, before being told that the matter was with its insurer on 5 August 2024. Information should have been available to staff, and the landlord should have taken steps to seek an update from the insurer at the time. It has recognised that it failed to respond to the resident at this stage.
  7. The resident has raised concern that the landlord’s insurer did not place monitors on the property until August 2024 and, had they done this sooner, they may have resolved the subsidence earlier. While this may have been the case, we cannot comment on the actions of the landlord’s insurer. We do not dispute that there were failings in the landlord’s management of subsidence prior to May 2024 and it ultimately recognised that it should have referred the matter to its insurer sooner.
  8. The resident also chased the landlord around 17 September 2024 to ask if there was a plan in place to address the cracks, and whether there was someone she could speak to about the work. While the insurance manager provided an update internally on 23 and 24 September 2024, noting that a small tree needed to be removed, that its insurer was liaising with the local authority regarding a larger tree, that it could not complete repairs until the property was stable, and that they were happy for the resident to communicate with the insurer directly, it has not provided evidence that it updated the resident or provided its insurer’s contact information to her.
  9. The resident needed to continue chasing updates and call backs on several occasions in October 2024. The landlord recognised that it failed to respond to her on 1 October 2024. However, on 8 October 2024, she raised specific concern about the lack of communication and wanted someone to discuss the subsidence and work needed, as well as confirmation that the property was safe. Despite chasing this again on 18 October 2024, and her concerns about the safety of the property and extent of worsening cracks, we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord provided any meaningful update to her or informed the insurer of her concerns that the situation had worsened. This was a failing.
  10. In her complaint on 22 November 2024, the resident specifically referenced that she was still waiting for the repairs that were raised in July 2023. Her communication with the landlord indicates that she did not have clear information about how it was handling the subsidence issues. It may not have been able to complete repairs to the cracks while the insurance claim was ongoing, as this could invalidate the claim, however, it did not explain this. It is of concern that the resident’s reports of the worsening conditions did not prompt additional action.
  11. We would have expected to see evidence to show that it communicated any reports that the cracks were worse to its insurer to determine whether it, or the insurer, were able to complete temporary repairs to mitigate the impact on the resident and her family while investigations were ongoing. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord provided the resident with relevant contact details for its insurance manager (as a point of contact about the insurance claim) until its stage 1 complaint response on 19 December 2024, 7 months after it raised the claim.
  12. We have not seen evidence to show that the resident reported damp or mould affecting the property until December 2024. The landlord acted reasonably in its responses by recognising that it failed to log a repair following the resident’s report. It confirmed that it visited the property on 23 January 2025 and aimed to complete repairs by 20 February 2025. It is unclear what works were identified as needed or completed and the landlord’s records indicate that it referred the repairs needed to its insurer to complete temporary repairs as part of the insurance claim on 27 January 2025.
  13. This was reasonable given the ongoing claim; however, it may have had the opportunity to consider referring any temporary repairs needed to its insurer sooner had it communicated with the resident about her reports of worsening conditions at an earlier stage. We note that it acted reasonably by asking the insurer to confirm that the property was safe to live in, which it did, and should have gone some way to reassure the resident.
  14. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm it would store the new windows until it could install them. It was aware of concerns about the planned window replacement programme from 20 November 2024 due to the ongoing subsidence. Given the possibility of structural damage to the property from removing the old windows, and concerns about damaging the new windows, it was reasonable for the landlord to defer the window replacement programme to the resident’s property. We note that she raised specific concerns about certain windows following the complaint which the landlord subsequently addressed.
  15. The resident has raised specific concern about loss of earnings due to the need to be at home for regular monitoring appointments. While we appreciate that the nature of the monitoring was likely to cause some level of inconvenience, this was required to gain evidence of the subsidence, and it would be the resident’s responsibility to allow access for repair appointments in line with the tenancy and repairs policy. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining that it did not offer compensation for loss of earnings in line with its policy. We do not order landlords to pay compensation towards loss of earnings but we do consider any failings that may have contributed to avoidable distress and inconvenience, or time and trouble to a resident.

Summary

  1. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of subsidence and repairs. We accept that some delays may have been unavoidable due to the involvement of the landlord’s insurer and the nature of subsidence investigations. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising its failure to progress repairs, delays, and poor communication prior to May 2024. However, it has not demonstrated that it communicated effectively or updated the resident to manage her expectations of how long work could take or explain any limitations it faced. Its poor communication led the resident to spend significant time and trouble pursuing updates and contributed to the inconvenience experienced.
  2. The landlord’s initial offer of £250 compensation in December 2023 went some way to put right the failings at that stage. However, its offer of £350 compensation in January 2025 toward the delays, her time, and poor communication is disproportionately low given the communication failures identified. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £250 compensation in line with our remedies guidance (available on our website). We have also included a recommendation below for the landlord to consider whether it has adequate systems in place to monitor insurance claims and communicate with residents.

The landlord’s handling of the complaints

  1. Following the resident’s MP enquiry on 10 November 2023, the landlord’s records indicate that the resident wished to raise a complaint. It raised this on 5 December 2023 and responded at stage 1 on 20 December 2023 which was within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. We have seen evidence to show that the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of subsidence and repairs. Specifically, on 1 March 2024, the landlord noted that the resident called and was unhappy about needing to chase works from the previous complaint, and that she was looking to escalate the matter to the Housing Ombudsman. This should have prompted the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and formally address her concerns.
  3. The resident also requested a call back on 1 October 2024 regarding the work and the landlord recorded that she wanted to “escalate” to a complaint. On 8 October 2024, it also recorded that the resident was angry regarding the lack of communication. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have either escalated the initial complaint at this stage, or to have opened a new complaint given the length of time that had passed since December 2023. The landlord’s failure to recognise and progress the resident’s dissatisfaction formally in line with its complaints process unreasonably extended the overall timeframe of the complaints and contributed to the time and trouble experienced.
  4. The resident raised a new complaint on 22 November 2024 The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 December 2024 19 working days later. This was outside of its complaint response timescales at stage 1. It acted reasonably by recognising that it had not communicated with the resident about the complaint prior to issuing the response, and had not acknowledged, extended, or responded to the complaint within its specified timescales. Its offer of £100 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling is proportionate in view of these short term failings.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 20 December 2024. It responded at stage 2 on 27 January 2025 which was a period of 23 working days and considered a reasonable timeframe. However, as set out above, it did not suitably engage with the resident’s concerns about its communication and lack of updates, and we have included a recommendation below.
  6. It can be reasonable for a landlord to exclude matters related to an insurance claim from its complaints process, especially in relation to claims for damage to belongings or liability claims where the outcome of the claim is more suitable to be considered by an insurer. However, where the landlord decides to make a claim related to its repair obligations to a resident via a building insurer, it would be responsible for ensuring that it provides regular updates to the resident on the progress of the claim, and explaining any limitations it faces while the claim is being investigated. It should also consider any failings in its own handling of the claim, and any resulting impact on a resident as part of its complaint responses. We have included a recommendation below in relation to this.
  7. In summary, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising its failure to acknowledge, extend, or respond within its timescales at stage 1 on 19 December 2024. However, failed to suitably progress the resident’s initial complaint through its complaints process despite being aware of her ongoing dissatisfaction throughout 2024. This extended the overall timeframe of the complaint and was likely to cause inconvenience and frustration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about subsidence and repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident £250 and £450 compensation as previously offered through its complaints process if it has not yet paid these figures.
    3. Pay the resident an additional £350 comprised of:
      1. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication in relation to the subsidence and repairs.
      2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the additional complaint handling failures identified.
    4. Write to the resident to provide an update on the progress of the insurance claim and the current time in which it expects to be able to progress repairs to the property, including the deferred window replacement work. It should consider any further temporary actions it can take to mitigate the impact on the resident if it is unlikely to complete repairs before the winter months and provide timescales. It should provide a point of contact to oversee the work through to completion.
  2. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above actions within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that:
    1. The landlord considers the resident’s concerns about additional energy costs due to cracks and gaps around the windows because of the subsidence issues. It should contact her to confirm what evidence it would require to consider a claim for compensation towards any additional costs.
    2. The landlord considers creating a subsidence policy or guidance to set out how it manages and responds to repairs involving subsidence if it has not already done so.
    3. The landlord reviews how it responds to complaints where its building insurer is managing a claim that involves its repair obligations to a resident. It should ensure that it has suitable systems in place to provide regular updates to residents where an insurer is taking the lead on repair related investigations and actions.
  2. The landlord should confirm its intentions in relation to these recommendations above within 4 weeks.