London Borough of Camden Council (202214654)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214654

Camden Council

30 July 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:
1. The landlord’s handling and response to reports of structural damage to the resident’s property
2. The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident, together with her brother, occupies a ground floor, 3-bedroom flat within a converted property of 5 flats under a lease dated 23 September 1991.

Legal and policy framework

Under the lease, the landlord was obliged to maintain and repair the structure of the building including the foundations, subject to payment by the resident of the resident’s share of the service charges.

Scope of this investigation

The resident’s complaint was about the length of time it had taken the landlord to address the structural issues in the building that had occurred over a period of 8 years and is ongoing. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint in terms of the length of time it took in reaching a resolution. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s investigations as this would require expert technical knowledge and expertise in the area of structural engineering. The Ombudsman is also unable to assess any financial losses as that would entail a legal analysis of negligence which is better suited for a court of law. That does not mean that the parties could not engage in negotiation, prior to any court action, as would be required by the rules of the court in any event. However, the Ombudsman can assess the landlord’s responses, including its level and quality of communication.
The resident reported how the events complained of affected her health. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and/or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them, and may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.

Chronology

There was no dispute that there was a history of cracking to the property dating from 2014. The landlord provided records of monitoring the condition of the property in terms of the cracks in 2015 and 2017 to 2019. Twice weekly external crack monitoring started on the 21 August 2017 and continued twice weekly until 23 March 2018. The crack monitoring then continued at once weekly or once fortnightly intervals until 7 September 2018. Thereafter, crack monitoring took place at various intervals into 2022.
We were provided with some historic correspondence, in particular 2017 onwards. The landlord had informed us that it did not retain emails for more than 7 years, given its retention policy and that it had provided as many emails as it had available to it. As the provision of documents was piece meal, we do not have the full history. We do not know whether recommendations and requests were followed up. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the conclusions of those reports and correspondence as it is not known if all reports have been provided. We do not have the technical expertise to assess the reports themselves or the works undertaken in any event. However, we have noted their existence and that the landlord took them into consideration.
The historical documents consisting of as follows:
2017
1. Investigation reports, apparently commissioned by the owners of a neighbouring property to assess the potential impact of intended works on the resident’s block.
2. A party wall agreement dated 17 May 2017 with the neighbouring property noted that settlement monitoring would be undertaken twice weekly until 6 months after the ground floor was installed. The readings taken appear to broadly accord with this. According to an internal email of 7 January 2020, the resident’s flat was not included as at that time, as it was likely that it was too remote from the building works to be affected.
3. On 27 June 2017, a consulting engineers (CE) report on behalf of the landlord referred to inspections of in 2014, 2016, and March 2017. He had noted that cracks in the resident’s flat had been filled in but any movement would create further cracking. It also noted cracks in the kitchen and corridor, and difficulty in closing external doors. The condition had been stable and there had been a “slight increase” of cracking in the resident’s flat since 2014. Cutting down trees had helped the situation. It had investigated the soil and drains. The drainage was not indicated as the issue. The block had sustained structural damage due to ground movement. but indicative of ongoing subsidence. It was not considered to be an emergency. The report recommended tree reduction and soil investigations to the resident’s flat foundations. The crack monitoring should continue and include the resident’s flat.
4. On 18 September 2017, the landlord wrote to CE asking them to review the crack and monitoring reports as the “level readings” were “within the red” and stop or revise works. There was no evidence whether this was followed up.
2018
1. On 14 September 2018, the landlord informed the residents that there was a level of stabilisation but then a measurement of 8 mm in 2 ½ months. A had suggested subsidence investigations “some time back” and it would set this up. It would continue monitoring.
2. On 12 October 2018, the resident chased an update to replacement windows, and inspections of her flat.
3. As at 22 November 2018, the resident had reported that a 6-foot window pane had fallen out of the window into her bedroom but was “caught” by a curtain.
2019
1. On 20 January 2019, the resident chased a repair to the communal stairs affected by the cracks appeared.
2. On 4 June 2019, repairs took place to paving and retaining party wall.
3. On 15 July 2019, a soil analysis report was produced for the landlord.
2020
1. On 13 March 2020, CE produced a Summary Report Revision. This was not provided to this Service.
2. On 13 May 2020, a file note recorded that, if trees were reduced, it would review for ongoing crack and level monitoring.
3. On 17 July 2020, a repair to a garden gate required due to ground movements took place.
4. According to an internal note on 30 July 2020, the landlord would consider reducing the trees “significantly” and then monitor.
5. On 31 July 2020, the landlord wrote to CE that it wanted to go ahead with a specification for development of an underpinning scheme. It appreciated the impact of the trees and the development in the neighbouring property.
6. On 5 August 2020, a further report by CE discussed a different of opinion between experts, commissioned by, it is understood, a neighbour of the resident. Its report dated 1 July 2020, which was not provided to this Service. CE’s view was that movement had been caused by subsoil desiccation. It suggested that in order to resolve the difference of opinion, it recommended that some trees were significantly reduced and the crack and level monitoring continued for an annual cycle. If the reduction of the trees did not arrest the movement, the foundations should be underpinned. Alternatively, the foundations could be underpinned and the ground floor replaced with a suspended floor and specialist superstructure repairs undertaken.
7. A preliminary report dated 19 August 2020 by further consulting engineers (B) inspected the resident’s flat favouring the hypothesis of slope instability and that the drains (rather than the trees) may be “implicated”. The report described it as a “serious case of subsidence” and suggested underpinning.
8. A consultant chartered building surveyor (C) wrote to the landlord that the building was safe, for “the time being” but he cited a number of causes including the works next door, a previous development on the other side and a road improvement scheme. He also updated the resident briefly on 5, 20 and 21 August 2020 and to make arrangements for a further inspection.
9. On 19 August 2020, B wrote to the landlord that he considered that slope instability could well be the primary cause. This was “Major subsidence”.
10. On the same day, C wrote to the landlord that that “on balance”, the opinion was that the building was safe for “the time being” but this could change.
11. On 23 August 2020, C wrote to the landlord that, having been instructed to undertake a review, “they” (undefined) “strongly believed” that an extensive underpinning scheme, where the residents would need to be decanted, was required.
12. In September and November 2020, a cctv survey and drainage repairs due to subsidence and dilapidation took place.
In 2021
1. On 10 May 2021, the resident wrote to the major repairs manager asking for a timescale. She was aware the matter was complex. He replied nothing would happen when she was away for 2 months.
2. On 1 November 2021, the resident wrote to major repairs manager that “residents (did not) have a clue” and there was no point in her redecorating her flat.
On 8 February 2022, the resident wrote with her complaint to the landlord as follows:
1. The complaint was about the landlord’s “lack of action” and “being remiss in their duty of care” and “standards reached” in relation to “(its) legal duty” as the freeholder.
2. The impact consisted of financial loss, deprivation of freedom to make normal and reasonable life choices, related deprivation of considering futures, the impact on the mental health of the residents and the time, effort and threat to her wellbeing over a protracted and unreasonable period of time, as well as the physical threat to her health and safety.
3. She had raised initial concerns in 2015, when the resident reported noticeable cracking. The landlord stated it would start a” monitoring programme”. Engineers were appointed in June 2015. The building was monitored for 12 months to allow sufficient time to assess the movement of the building ny the landlord’s inhouse structural engineers. She did not receive updates but monitoring continued. She considered that no concrete solution was offered and therefore the monitoring was of no purpose. She felt “under considerable threat and fear for (her) future”.
4. In addition to this monitoring, there has been “trial pits”, removal and pollarding of some trees. It seemed to have relied more on ‘trial and error’ attitude.
5. She regularly updated the Capital Projects team of all the damage that has continued to occur including replacement external doors and windows, boundary walls repairs, holes in external walls where “weather elements” penetrated, plaster being held in place by wallpaper, pipes, (including damage to walls that have drains and gas pipes running along them), with significant cracks. She was concerned about pipes fracturing.
6. She considered that the building had been “significantly impacted” by major works next door. Her building had been “hugely lowered on both sides creating a kind of island”.
7. She and her brother were due to retire. The situation had impacted on their mental health and wellbeing and there was a risk to their health, safety and financial security. Her home has no value. She was reluctant to have family or friends visit due to the extensive damage in her home. It was a health and safety hazard. This was a safeguarding matter. She was living in fear.
On 2 March 2022, the landlord wrote as follows :
1. It referred to her “enquiry” dated 8 February 2022 about the long-term structural issues which had been “ongoing for 8 years with no real resolution in sight”.
2. The “details (were) very complex”. The insurance manager had provided an update on the situation.
3. The complaints process was not the appropriate channel because no “outcome would impact the speed of a resolution being brought about”.
4. It understood that ”this will not be received happily”.
5. The landlord was working towards a solution.
6. Her “complaints or concerns” had been forwarded to the insurance manager as he understood what was happening “intimately”.
7. It recommended submitting her complaint when this matter had been fully resolved, at which time it would be able to decide if compensation should be awarded.
The resident replied that she was not happy with the response and asked for the update referred to. The landlord replied it had “got the name wrong” and referred the resident to C instead.
On 31 March 2022, C wrote to the resident it was to progress investigation and implementing remedial works. As it was complex, he had been asked to act as “conduit”. It had identified geotechnical experts to explore the “vulnerability of the site”. It needed to consider costs. In order to avoid expenditure, B and C had devised “a staged approach”. The landlord had had to refer the matter to the insurers.
On the same day, the resident wrote to the complaints officer referring to the email of 2 March 2022. This had not addressed the complaint about the landlord’s failure to resolve the issue after 8 years. She asked to escalate the complaint.
On 6 April 2022, the complaints officer referred the resident to the complaint email address stating she was “sorry (she) could not help “completely” resolve the matter.
On 13 April 2022, the resident wrote to the generic email address and again asked to escalate her complaint.
On 22 June and 19 July 2022, the resident chased a response to her email of 13 April 2022.
On 19 July 2022, the landlord replied that it would not escalate the complaint because it had not responded at Stage 1. The landlord replied referring her to the insurance manager. It would not escalate as the complaint officer had only provided an update but no Stage 1 response. The resident replied that she thought the reply of 2 March 2022 had constituted a Stage 1 response.
On 7 November 2022, B wrote to the resident that funds were in place for further investigations by the geotechnical consultants.
On 18 November 2022, the resident wrote to B that she had reported cracks to the front bay stone frame and “bulging” windows. The middle pane of the secondary glazing had dropped forward and was only “saved” by the curtain. “They” had secured the pane with masking tape.
On 7 December 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to provide its Stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint by 30 December 2022.
On 9 December 2022, loss adjusters who would be carrying out investigations (trial holes) wrote to the resident about the ground surface.
On 12 December 2022, the resident wrote asking why there had been a delay of 18 months to the monitoring and asked for timescales.
On 28 February 2023, the resident informed our Service as follows:
1. There had been an escalation of involvement since the landlord appointed B and C to take the lead on the subsidence issues.
2. B and C had arranged for the front bay to be bolted in place.
On 2 May 2023, we wrote to the landlord as follows:
1. The complaint was ongoing structural issues at the residence since 2014 and communication from the landlord. Neither the landlord or its experts it had referred her to had provided a timeline of when a resolution may be found.
There followed an unexplained gap in the evidence.
On 7 December 2022, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord as follows:
1. We had asked that the landlord respond to the resident’s complaint by 30 December 2022. We had since seen the letter from the landlord of 2 March 2022. It was not clear to the Ombudsman whether the landlord’s letter dated 2 March 2022 constituted a complaint response. It was not identified as a complaint response and it did not offer escalation advice or referral rights to our Service.
2. We referred the landlord to the complaint 8 February 2022 which had raised a number of complaint points. The landlord had not responded to the complaint points raised by the resident or provided any explanation, remedy or consideration of the impacts noted. It was referring this complaint back to the landlord on the basis a valid reason had not been provided to refuse the resident’s complaint.
3. The Ombudsman required the landlord respond to the complaint at Stage One of its internal complaint’s procedure no later than 17 May 2023.
On 18 May 2023, the landlord sent to this Service its Stage 1 (referred to as “a local resolution”) response to the resident’s complaint. The response was dated 17 April 2023. We forwarded this to the resident on the same day. The response stated as follows:
1. It referred to the resident’s complaint received from the Housing Ombudsman on 2 May 2023.
2. It upheld the complaint as it acknowledged that this case had been ongoing for a long time.
3. It was hoped the “recent” slope stability analysis report would provide some clarity of causation and how best to resolve so that a programme of works can be prepared, works undertaken and “quiet enjoyment can be restored”.
4. It was sorry for the length of time and obvious frustration. It apologised for the inconvenience of having to live with the crack damage and distortion caused by the structural movement affecting the entire building.
5. The engineering problems were “complicated”. The delays reflected, in part at least, conflicting professional opinions as to the cause of the structural problems. Following an earlier programme of inconclusive site investigations and reports, in 2020, the landlord had sought fresh professional advice.
6. Given the conflict of opinion, the landlord had taken further independent engineering advice from a separate specialist geotechnical consultant. This led to an in-depth site investigation which was carried out in January 2023. The results of those investigations formed the basis of a detailed slope stability analysis, the report on which was received on 4 May 2023.
7. The cost of repair could exceed the landlord’s self-insured limit and so it had referred the claim to its insurers and onto loss adjusters. Its insurers appointed a fresh loss adjuster. It was reviewing the report and was to “imminently” discuss the findings with the replacement loss adjuster. B was now in the process of reviewing the remedial engineering options for the landlord and its insurers to consider. This included looking at how much the development of the adjacent site had contributed to the damage.
8. To reserve the landlord’s and leaseholders’ position, the landlord’s lawyer had placed the developer to the neighbouring property on notice as to future recovery action.
9. It had maintained a point of contact for the building residents through B and C.
10. It understood that B had kept her informed about progress and how the broader structural issues were being dealt with.
11. It had employed a builder to carry out temporary strengthening of the front bay structure of her flat and to ease and adjust binding doors.
12. It had queried whether the costs of the remedial works required once the external works had been completed would be borne by the landlord.
13. It would update her once it had received advice from its insurance and major repairs team.
On 28 May 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord as follows:
1. The Stage 1 letter was dated 14 April 2023 but she did not receive her letter (via email from the Ombudsman) until 17 May 2023 (sic).
2. While the complaint was upheld, she still did not know what was happening. The decision had not progressed matters.
3. There was an acknowledgement of the financial and emotional impacts but no recognition of compensation. The response did not provide an outcome, or a timeline of an outcome, or what possible scenarios may be sought in achieving a positive outcome.
4. The landlord referred to ‘a weakening of the front bay structure’. A window casement had buckled due to the movement of the structure, causing it to fall inwards into her bedroom. The emergency repair team said the piece, which was leaning into her room, weighed 40-60 kg.
5. She referred to the landlord’s “tone-deaf” approach. The complaint response did not acknowledge her concerns with the deterioration of her home “at best negligent, at worst potentially life threatening” but used the word ‘inconvenient’.
6. She queried the landlord’s position regarding costs, calling it an “opaque statement”. The works should include internal repairs to wide cracks, door frames and window frame movement. There should have been a definitive answer. She was not reassured that the issue would be resolved soon.
On 2 June 2023, a geotechnical expert produced a report on slope stability. It considered that the trees and redevelopment had had an impact but were not the cause of the issues. It noted a very steep slope.
On 12 June 2023, the landlord replied with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. It had responded on 17 April 2023 and upheld her complaint. She apologised for the time taken and hoped that the recent slope stability analysis report of 4 May 2023 would provide clarity with a programme of works to follow. The engineering problems were complicated, and it had to seek further advice in 2020, with costs possibly exceeding its self-insured limit. It had to follow a process dictated by our insurer’s appointed loss adjusters. It had taken took independent engineering advice from a separate specialist and an in-depth site investigation was carried out in January 2023.
2. It had “maintained a point of contact for residents” through B and C. It had employed a builder to carry out temporary strengthening of the resident’s front bay and to ease and adjust doors “etc…”.
3. The complaints officer would update the resident as to whether the remedial works would be borne by the landlord once the external works were completed.
4. The Complaints Team is independent of the service she had complained about.
5. It set out the following emails as evidence of its communication:
  1. The email of 2 March 2022.
  2. C had updated her.
  3. The landlord did not believe that the complaints process was the appropriate channel for compensation. It was best to submit the complaint confusing when the matter was fully resolved, for compensation to be considered.
  4. C’s email of 7 November 2022.
  5. C wrote to her about the internal bay window on 23 November 2022.
  6. The claims advisor on 9 December 2022 regarding what investigations it was undertaking including excavations and a drainage CCTV survey.
  7. On 9 March 2023, a company advised of an inspection and that “they” were instructed by the “freeholders” to also act on their behalf in relation to external and communal areas.
  8. Email in response to her query of 7 April 2023, stating that nearby scaffolding was unrelated to the insurance claim or structural issues.
  9. C on 20 April 2023, regarding the repair to the window bay to be carried out “shortly”.
6. It partly upheld the complaint “at this stage”. It apologised for the time taken to diagnose and undertake works.
7. The stage 1 responder had investigated the concerns effectively and had “apologised appropriately”.
8. Its point of contact had provided suitable updates to residents.
9. The complaints team would liaise with major repairs, to “ensure” that she was given a decision on the responsibility for remedial works, following the completion of external works.
10. There a full “scheme of underpinning” may be required. It was currently waiting for the leasehold insurer to engage, as they would be responsible for temporary accommodation costs and internal repairs to leasehold units.
11. In regard to her request for compensation, it agreed that the complaints process was not the appropriate channel and recommended that she seek independent legal advice on this matter.
On 28 June 2023, the resident informed this Service that she had not been aware of the slope stability report of 4 May 2023 or heard from C for the last 8 weeks. The loss adjuster had not received the soil stability report. There had been no previous information about a decant. Compensation was not “the core” of her complaint but about the lack of action and communication.
On 10 July 2023, the resident queried with C whether loss adjusters had taken over from the previous loss adjustors and could she ignore their letter.
On 11 July 2023, B sent the resident the geotechnical report (presumably the report of 4 May 2023 or 2 June 2023). He said the report corroborated the earlier opinion about long-term slope stability.
There followed correspondence with B about the approach to investigations and next steps. B felt the landlord was procrastinating about the repairs to the front bay and would be reviewed on the resident’s return.
In December 2023, the resident informed this Service that a consultant was working with residents. Builders had undertaken temporary strengthening.
On 19 July 2024, the landlord informed this Service as follows:
1. The description of works can be best defined as land slip rather than subsidence.
2. Extensive engineering works are planned – a high–level summary can best outline the work whereby the landlord have instructed external consultants to source, procure and contract administer an external specialist to carry out works to input 139 piles, approx. 15 metres deep over an estimated 12-month period to secure the land.
3. Works over the 12-month project period will include red route part-road closures, residents being temporarily moved from their homes, and cross working across a number of internal and external parties.
4. Works were due to start in September, however due to delays in the procurement process, a new start date in currently being firmed up, this is looking likely to be within this calendar year. Letters have been sent to residents to update and will continue to be issued throughout the programme of works.

Assessment and findings

Structural damage

The evidence showed that, historically, the landlord commissioned a number of investigations, and considered various approaches, as well as a change of experts. It also showed that there was an extensive period of monitoring which indicated that there were periods of relative stability. One of the recommendations was to reduce the trees, which was carried out on various occasions, and to test the result before considering underpinning. The broad conclusion was the causes were multi-factorial. There were a number of theories about the causes, aired at different times, including the trees, drainage, a historical road expansion and historical works as well as more recent building works in a neighbouring property, as well as sloping ground.
It would be usual to monitor cracking over a lengthy period. The landlord would be entitled to rely on the opinions of experts, while retaining a questioning overview. The evidence also showed some disagreement between experts and disagreement about interpretations. It was reasonable to be concerned about costs that exceeded insurance levels, both as a local authority in receipt of public funds and as this could affect leaseholders. Decisions about what steps to take would also depend on the views of loss adjusters. The evidence suggested that investigations could have begun sooner and there was a revising of approaches. For example, investigation of subsidence was suggested in 2018 but, although discussed, did not appear to progress until 2022.
Progress did appear slow, and a number of theories were considered, even repetitively. However, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to assess the impact of the delays on the resident’s property as this would require technical expertise, nor can the Ombudsman assess whether the landlord acted reasonably in pursuing the various investigations that it did, as this would require expert technical expertise and require a legal analysis of negligence. The Ombudsman can assess how the landlord handled the situation in terms of its communication.
It was reasonable that the landlord carried out interim repairs. There were, however, some evidence of the resident chasing repairs, for example, to replacement windows in 2018, the communal stairs in 2019, and, later on, to the bay window area.
The evidence showed that the cracks in the building impacted on the resident considerably. Apart from the aesthetics, including being unable to decorate, the resident described her frustration, her worry, her concerns about financial stability, the impact on her and her brother’s retirements plans. The resident described feeling “trapped”, as the cracks would inhibit, if not prevent, a sale. She stated her concern of the impact on her safety, particularly given the falling pane in 2018 and collapse of the front bay area in 2022. There was also the inconvenience of the ongoing need for repairs.
There was very little evidence that the resident was updated by the landlord with any reasonable frequency or, prior to 2022, at all. By the landlord’s own account, there was a gap in correspondence between 2 March 2022 (which email of that date did not constitute an update) and November 2022. We only saw evidence of one of the emails of 7 November 2022 and the exchange on 22 November 2022 which was instigated by the resident. The evidence showed she was not updated about a change of loss adjustors.
While the evidence showed that communication gradually improved in and around November 2022 onwards, it was still not to a reasonable level, given the importance and complexity of this matter.
The landlord accepted that there were delays in its response to the resident’s reports of cracks in her home. However, the Ombudsman finds maladministration, given that the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s communication with her was inadequate.

Complaint handling

It was unreasonable that the landlord did not address the resident’s complaint of 8 February 2022. It would be true of most complaints that a resolution would not be immediate. This is not a reason not to respond. To state it would not deal with a complaint because it would not speed up a resolution was unsatisfactory. It was unreasonable to suggest the resident make a fresh complaint after the issues had been resolved. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to address the complaint, monitor progress and ensure the resident’s concerns had been responded to. The landlord missed an opportunity to improve matters, such as communication and to provide a detailed explanation for its delays. It was dismissive in tone to state ”this will not be received happily”. Moreover, in March 2022, it referred the resident to the incorrect person and did so again later on, on 19 July 2022. This gave the impression of the complaints team not being sufficiently engaged in the resident’s situation.
The status of the response from the original complaints officer of the 2 March 2022, whether it was a Stage 1 response or not, was unclear to the resident for the reasons set out in our letter to the landlord dated 2 May 2023. It was then unreasonable that, on further contact, the complaints officer referred the resident onto a different email contact, rather than ensure that she was responded to. To state that the landlord had been unable to “completely” resolve the matter was not accurate, as there had been no resolution at all. The resident was then put to the trouble and frustration of sending several further chasers.
The landlord’s decision not to escalate the complaint prevented a review of its decision not to address it. It was then further unreasonable that the landlord still did not respond to the complaint despite this Service asking it to do so in December 2022. Nor did the landlord explain its reasoning for not responding. It was not until further contact from us that the landlord finally responded to the resident on 18 May 2023, some 15 months after her complaint.
The Stage 1 response letter itself was misdated as the evidence showed it was sent to us on 18 May 2023 and, according to the resident, not to her at all. The Stage 2 also identified the Stage 1 response as dated 17 April 2023 and then, confusingly, referred to a report dated 4 May 2023. The resident was not satisfied that the response did not present a solution. The Ombudsman understands the difficulties in that regard as investigations were still ongoing. However, the landlord could have set out its broad plan and broad timescales and what to broadly expect. The point is she was still not better informed of a plan.
The landlord relied on the 2023 geotechnical report as an explanation of its plan. It was unreasonable to expect the resident to deduce any plan from what was a highly technical report which focussed on the causes of the subsidence. Moreover, the landlord had not provided a copy of this report until B did so in July 2023. To add to the confusion, the report was dated 2 June 2023, not 4 May 2023.
The landlord referred the resident to its expert consultants for updates. It is reasonable to refer the resident to the experts who could better answer the resident’s questions, however the landlord should have retained a role as it was the landlord’s responsibility to answer the questions and ultimately for the landlord to make the decisions. There was no evidence the landlord checked and monitored the level of communication from the surveyor and engineer to the resident. Given the length of time the issues lasted, the considerable worry caused to the resident, that her home and main asset was deteriorating, this was highly unsatisfactory and demonstrated no appreciation of the resident’s experience.
While it expressed some empathy with her situation, the landlord failed to appreciate the impact of the condition of the property on the resident, including of the window casement failing into her home.
The Stage 2 response partially upheld the complaint which was a contradiction with it having upheld the complaint at Stage 1. It was not clear why the complaint was only partially upheld at Stage 2 but it is deduced that the landlord accepted there had been delays but did not accept that its communication was at fault. It did not assess its own complaint handling. It did not explain the relevance of the complaints team being “independent” from the repairs team. The resident’s complaint was about the delays over a period of 8 years. It did not address the full period or explain why it did not do so. While the costs of the works could potentially have been passed onto the resident, it did not explain its reasons for suggesting this. This was worrying for the resident.
The Stage 2 response was an improvement on the Stage 1 complaint in that it was more detailed. It was also more empathetic in tone. It, at least, promised some monitoring and updates. However, it cited its own complaint responses and emails on other issues such as interim repairs as evidence of updates. It did not assess the level and meaningfulness of the communication. There was some evidence of updates set out in the Stage 2 response, however the resident stated she had not received some of them. It did not explain its rationale for referring the resident to solicitors for compensation. The chronology it provided was confusing as it veered between years. While it may have had good reason to limit the complaint, it did not explain why the response did not go back further than 2020.
The Ombudsman has found that the issues for the resident were exacerbated rather than ameliorated by the complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling and response to reports of structural damage to the resident’s property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has not assessed whether the landlord acted unreasonably in its handling of the subsidence as this would require technical expertise but has assessed its standard and quality of communication. The landlord acknowledged the delays to the resolution of the issues in relation to the structure of the building, Given the complexities and importance of the issues, the impact on the resident and length of time it was ongoing, the level of communication was poor. It was unreasonable to rely solely on its experts for communication.
This investigation identified a number of weaknesses in the landlord’s complaint handling. This would have exacerbated the frustration and distress for the resident. It was unreasonable to have declined the address the complaint. When the landlord did respond, it did not assess its own performance. This meant that the landlord lost the opportunity to make improvements and give the resident confidence in its handling of the case.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £1,150 consisting as follows:
  1. £750 in relation to its response to the handling and response to reports of structural damage to the resident’s property.
  2. £400 in relation to its complaint handling.
Within 3 weeks of this report, a senior member of staff at Director level should:
1. Explain in what circumstances and on what basis she may be liable for costs and let her know when a decision will be reached.
2. Commit to the resident and the Ombudsman that:
  1. It will update the resident every 4 weeks as to the investigation and plans to address the subsidence. It may rely on its experts for the technical explanations, but it must monitor that that communication is comprehensive. The timescale can be extended if the landlord provides a reasonable explanation and timescale, such as it is awaiting an investigation or a report, or works have been scheduled.
  2. It will write to the resident on receipt of any report with an explanation of any implications and next steps.
  3. The complaints team will monitor that this communication is being adhered to.
3. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should conduct a review of its complaint handling to include:
  1. A formal training programme to all front line staff with a view to increasing the levels of service focussing on: Being more proactive, the importance of monitoring, understanding the background and history of particular cases, and reviewing the failures highlighted in this case.
  2. A guidance note from that training, a copy of which should be provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 8 weeks of this report.