Trident Housing Association Limited (202214982)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214982

Trident Housing Association Limited

18 November 2024

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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports concerning the condition of the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

The Scheme explains at paragraph 42.a that the Ombudsman may only look at matters that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service.
We can see in an internal email of 16 August 2024 the landlord noted that, if a move date was not achieved for the resident by 21 August 2024, then the flat that had been put aside for her would be withdrawn and reallocated. We understand this flat was subsequently allocated to a different resident. This event took place some time after the landlord’s final complaint response of July 2023 and is therefore outside of the scope of this investigation.
We have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to find out if she wants to make a formal complaint about this issue. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to these concerns, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman as a separate complaint at that stage.
This report will therefore focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the condition of the property and the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a purpose-built low-rise block. The landlord notes that the resident is vulnerable due to mobility issues.
In June, August and September 2020 the resident reported cracks in the walls of the property. She said they had been there for a while, but they had recently opened up more. In September 2020 the landlord noted that work should be carried out to repair these cracks.
Almost a year later, in August 2021, the resident reported that the walls of the bedroom were “crumbling”. Her son also reported the same concerns the following month. In early October 2021 there was a survey of the property. This found that the damage did not appear to be as a result of foundation movement. The report suggested that the “high level damage” might be due to either damp or a result of the interior not having been adequately dried, prior to replastering, following a flood in 2018. The report recommended investigating further to establish the cause of the blown plaster; carrying out remedial works; and, externally repointing the brickwork to reduce the risk of damp ingress.
At the end of that month, the resident made a group complaint to the landlord along with other residents in the block who were experiencing similar problems). She expressed her concerns about the “big chunks” of plaster falling from the wall. She also described gaps around the windows. She added that residents were frightened for their safety. We have not seen the outcome of that group complaint.
In December 2021 a second survey was carried out specifically in relation to suspected movement of the property. This found that a nearby tree might be causing issues and recommended its removal.
Meanwhile in February 2022 the landlord had written to the resident setting out the remedial work it would undertake. This work meant a wardrobe would have to be dismantled and put back together. The landlord asked the resident to sign and send back a slip agreeing to the works.
Six months later, the resident reported cracks on the ceiling. The evidence suggests the landlord attended but it is not clear what the outcome was of that.
On 10 October 2022, this Service asked the landlord to investigate a formal complaint from the resident about plaster falling off the wall; damage to external walls; a 3-inch gap between the window frame and the wall; the delay in completing remedial works and the landlord’s communication with the resident.
In late November 2022 a contractor undertook a structural survey of the property. This found that the property was suffering from structural movement which had resulted in fractures to the external walls both inside and outside. It said the external window frames had twisted and there were air gaps round them. It said that the movement was occurring at foundation level and noted a large tree close by could be the influencing factor on the foundation movement. It said trial pits would be needed to find out details of the foundations and the ground strata. It recommended that the landlord should seal gaps around the windows as soon as possible.
On 9 December 2022 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response and upheld the complaint. It said it would carry out all the property repairs as soon as possible and apologised that it did not follow up these works with the resident in February 2022. The landlord said it could fill the cracks in the property in the meantime or temporarily move the resident. It said it had asked its temporary accommodation provider to find accommodation for her. The landlord apologised for the delays in completing the work as well as its poor communication and offered £500 as a goodwill gesture.
We understand that in mid-December 2022, the landlord’s contractor formed trial holes, inspected the internal walls and filled the cracks on a temporary basis. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 4 January 2023. We have not seen the details of the escalation request but can see the landlord received it on that date.
The evidence suggests that this tree that was believed to be causing the subsidence was removed in May 2023. In June 2023 the landlord identified a flat in a block on the same site which the resident agreed to move to. This would be a permanent move.
Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, on 21 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. It explained that it had reported its concerns about the structural issues at the property to its buildings insurer adding that resolving subsidence was complex and could take between 18 to 24 months. It said it understood her frustration with the lack of visible action taken by surveyors during their visits which led to her refusing access. It apologised for the miscommunication and the frustration caused.
The landlord noted the resident had agreed to move into a different flat in the complex while the works were undertaken, and it had approved a new heating system and bathroom for her needs. It apologised for the delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response saying it had no record of the escalation request. It gave her a single point of contact for the duration of the works.
In September 2023, the evidence suggests that the resident reported that cracking to walls of the property was getting worse. The landlord engaged a subsidence monitoring company to monitor the cracks from the following month.
Some 7 months later, in May 2024, a surveyor inspected the property again and noted major damage to plaster finishes following structural movement and structural repairs were required to external walls. They noted the resident was waiting for a move so that the repairs could be carried out.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that the property was “uninhabitable”. She explained that parts of the external walls were falling off, the windows had bowed and there was a 2-inch gap around them which meant they were not watertight. She said the cracks were increasing daily and plaster was falling off to the extent that it woke her at night when big chunks fell off the wall. She said the building was “groaning” and she was “terrified” it would collapse.
The resident also said that the state of the property was making her ill. She added that communicating with the landlord was impossible as she could not use email due to her disability and the landlord did not accept phone calls. As an outcome, the resident said that she wanted the repairs to be done and to be moved while they were carried out. She said she would also like compensation because her curtains and carpets had been ruined and her gas bill had increased from £60 a month to £60 a week as she tried to keep the flat warm.
In October 2024, at the Ombudsman’s request, the landlord visited the resident and told us that it was preferable to move her due to the worry the property was causing her. It said it was working to identify a suitable property for her to relocate to, to allow it to complete necessary repairs. It said it would review the options for the resident on a daily basis.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident mentions that her health is being affected by the poor state of the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, and we understand this has been a difficult time for her. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s health concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerning the condition of the property

Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property including, among other things, the exterior and interior walls, window frames and plasterwork. This reflects the landlord’s obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy explains that capital responsive works are larger repairs. These types of works often require a more significant investment of time and resources and may involve upgrading major elements of a property. The responsibility for managing capital responsive works falls on the repairs team who, the policy says, will respond reactively to repair requests and manage projects accordingly ensuring that they are completed to a high standard and in a timely manner.
When the resident first reported cracks in the walls of the property in mid-2020, the landlord acted appropriately by noting it would carry out replastering of the affected areas. It is reasonable to presume that these repairs were carried out as there is no evidence the resident made any further reports of cracking at that time. The replastering was a proportionate step to take to resolve the matter in the first instance.
When the resident reported further cracking almost a year later in August 2021, the landlord acted reasonably in arranging a survey to investigate its cause. That survey did not identify any structural movement but recommended further investigation and remedial works. While structural movement was subsequently identified, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of this appropriately qualified contractor at the time. In some cases it can take time for signs of movement to become apparent, this in itself does not necessarily indicate an error by the landlord.
The landlord carried out further investigation as recommended by the surveyor a few months later, in December 2021. That was appropriate and undertaken within a reasonable timeframe. In early 2022 the landlord drew up a schedule of works and told the resident a tree, that had been identified as a potential cause of the problem, would be removed. However, the landlord did not progress these works as the resident did not return a form agreeing to them in February 2022. That was a further failing as the landlord had an obligation to carry out these repairs. In its stage one complaint response, it acknowledged that it should have followed up the repairs with the resident. This resulted in a delay of 8 months as the landlord did not take any action in relation to the cracks until December 2022.
The findings of a third survey in November 2022 agreed that it was likely the tree was to blame for the movement of the block. We can see that, while the landlord asked a specialist tree company to remove the tree in April 2022, it was not removed until May 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord chased up this work. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so in order to progress the tree removal promptly to try to prevent further damage to the block.
Some 6 months after the removal of the tree, the resident reported that the cracking in the property was getting worse and it acted appropriately by engaging a company to monitor the block. This is ongoing. However, there is no evidence of any further repairs to the property to date. This means that the resident has lived with cracking to the plasterwork and gaps around the windows since she started reporting these problems again in September 2023. This appears to be because the landlord was focussed on a move for the resident.
In relation to this move, the landlord acted reasonably by offering 2 properties that the resident refused. The Ombudsman is not commenting on the resident’s reasons for refusing the properties, but it was appropriate for the landlord to offer several properties as options to resolve the issues the resident was experiencing. Some months later, it identified another property in the same estate and offered this as a permanent move. The landlord told the Ombudsman that it did so because of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the fact that the repairs could take a significant amount of time to resolve. This was a positive step for the landlord to take to put matters right for the resident.
This move was delayed because the landlord reasonably agreed to undertake works to this new property to reflect the resident’s mobility needs. However, that took time, and the landlord should have carried out repairs to the property the resident remained in because it still had responsibility for maintaining and repairing the plasterwork and windows. It should have ensured that the walls and windows were kept in a reasonable state of repair whilst the resident was waiting to move. It was not appropriate for it to leave the walls and windows in a poor state of repair over such a long time period.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that its communication with the resident had been poor and gave her a senior staff member as a single point of contact while the repairs were ongoing. It also gave her a mobile number for this individual and undertook to contact her fortnightly with updates. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take to keep the resident informed of the progression of repairs and a move. However, it is not clear that these regular updates took place.
In its stage one complaint response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £500 for the delays in carrying out the repairs and its poor communication. This was in line with its compensation guidance which says that sums between £100 and £600 could be paid where there has been maladministration which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact. This sum covered the period up to 9 December 2022 which was the date of the stage one response. This offer was reasonable for the distress and inconvenience the landlord’s errors had caused the resident up until that date.
However, we consider additional compensation of £1,400 is appropriate to reflect the evident distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the fact that she has continued to live in a property with outstanding repairs as well as the poor communication from the landlord. This has been calculated at £100 a month from mid‑September 2023 (when the resident started reporting issues again) to date. This sum takes into account the vulnerabilities of the resident which meant delay in carrying out the repairs would have had a more significant effect on her compared to other residents in the same position without her vulnerabilities.
An order has also been made for the landlord to contact the resident for evidence of the additional energy costs that she says she has incurred as a result of the poor condition of the property. Such evidence would normally be utility bills for the same time of year the year before the issues started and the period when the resident says the costs were higher due to the state of the property. On production of this evidence, the landlord should award financial compensation in line with its compensation policy which allows for payments where the resident has had costs that would not otherwise have been incurred had there been no service failure.
We have made a further order for the landlord to write to the resident with the results of the cracking monitoring work to date and set out the options for a temporary and/or permanent move along with timescales.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord has a 2-stage formal complaint procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint was not appropriate. There were significant delays at both complaint stages. In particular, the landlord took 6‑and-a-half months to issue the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged that delay and apologised. However, there is no evidence it considered the impact of that delay or how it might remedy it.
There were other complaint handling failures. The landlord did not signpost the resident to the Ombudsman in its stage 2 complaint response and it did not consider the resident’s complaint about communication in particular in relation to her difficulty in contacting it by telephone as she finds it difficult to use email. The resident recently told the Ombudsman that this was ongoing. The resident had brought up this matter as a complaint, so she had a right to expect the landlord to respond to it. By not investigating her concerns, the landlord missed a chance to identify and fix issues at an earlier stage. We have made an order for the landlord to consider a fresh complaint about the resident’s concerns about its communication with her. It should contact her to get details of her complaint and in responding should consider its obligations under the Equality Act.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £150 is appropriate for the evident inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by these complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
1. The resident’s reports concerning the condition of the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
1. A senior manager to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the apologies guidance on our website.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £2,050 made up of:
  1. £500 offered in the stage one complaint response, if this has not been paid to the resident previously.
  2. £1,400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay in carrying out internal repairs to the property.
  3. £150 for the complaint handling failures.
3. Write to the resident with the results of the cracking monitoring work to date and set out the options for a temporary or permanent move along with timescales.
4. Consider the resident’s complaint about communication, in particular in relation to her difficulty in contacting it by telephone and respond in writing in line with the timescales in its complaints policy.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Writes to the resident to find out if she wants to make a formal complaint about the reallocation of the flat that she was due to move into. If the resident does wish to complain about this, the landlord should respond to the complaint in line with the timescales in its complaints policy.
2. In relation to other residents in the block who might be affected by the movement of the block:
  1. Consider if compensation is appropriate for the delay in carrying out any internal repairs.
  2. Consider if a temporary move would be appropriate for those residents also if it carries out any repairs.