Clarion Housing Association Limited (202318476)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318476

Clarion Housing Association Limited

7 June 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:
1. Handling of concerns about the condition of the property when it was let.
2. Handling of insulation issues within the property.
3. Handling of drainage works at the property.
4. Response to concerns about subsidence and movement of the property.
5. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 4 bedroom house owned by the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the resident has said she is registered disabled. Between January 2021 and August 2023 the resident lived at the property with 4 children under the age of 12. She also lived with her mother who was receiving palliative care.

Landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s void standard sets out the minimum standard a void property should reach before it is ready to let. For electrical safety it says all void properties should receive a full inspection with a “clean certificate” issued before the void is ready to let.
The landlord’s website details its repairs and maintenance responsibilities which includes, amongst other things, the outside walls of the property, the internal walls, ceilings and external drains.
The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy says it has a statutory and regulatory duty to carry out repairs and maintenance works for properties it is responsible for. It explains its aim is to ensure that repairs are carried out in a timely and efficient manner and for its repairs service to achieve high levels of customer satisfaction. It says an emergency repair will be attended to within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 days.
The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Excess cold and electrical hazards are potential hazards and a landlord is required to consider whether such issues within its properties amounts to a hazard that may require remedy. Measures that lessen the likely occurrence and reduce the possible outcomes of harm include, amongst other things, electrical wiring meeting the adequate requirements as well as appropriate levels of thermal insulation (around 21 degrees). A landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS and it is expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s complaint policy, applicable from June 2022, says it operates a 2 stage complaints process, where complaints will be acknowledged within 10 working days.
1. Stage 1 – it will aim to respond within 20 working days.
2. Stage 2 – (a peer review) it will aim to resolve peer reviews within 40 working days. If it can not resolve within this timeframe it will explain why and agree a frequency of keeping the resident updated.

Summary of events

The landlord completed some structural work to the property in 2020, this included repointing works and repairs to cracks. The landlord has provided a copy of an electrical installation condition report from 22 October 2020. The report found the electricity “unsatisfactory” and listed items as “potentially dangerous” where urgent remedial action was required.
On 26 October 2020 the landlord’s surveyor said the property was ready to let. A certificate of structural adequacy from November 2020 said the landlord removed the cause of damage to the property, monitored it from April to August 2020 and found it was stable. Following this the property was let to the resident in December 2020.
The landlord’s repairs log notes that in December 2020 the resident reported “exposed wires at the property”. The landlord attended to this the same day.
The resident raised concerns about the property being let in an “unacceptable standard” on 8 January 2021. At that time, she told the landlord how she believed the property was suffering from movement and, amongst other things, said the property was “freezing”. In November 2021, she repeated issues with insulation and told the landlord about “cracking” at the property.
On 29 April 2022 the landlord completed a structural survey of the property which found both internal and external cracking at the property. The survey highlighted that the cracking was “possible further structural movement” and thermal movement given the property was unheated during the void period. It recommended the landlord notify its insurer, carry out a survey of the drainage, monitor cracking over 12 months and conduct soil investigations.
The resident raised a complaint on 9 December 2022. She said the house had no cavity wall insulation and the insulation between the garage and bedroom above it was inadequate. She said a thermal reading was 11 degrees for the bedroom above the garage and explained how this made it unusable for her 6 month old baby or her mother who was returning from palliative care. The resident told the landlord that she was suffering hardship due to the cost of heating the property.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 December 2022 and said its relevant team would contact the resident. It also told the resident that it was recovering from a cyber security incident.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 6 January 2023 where she repeated concerns about movement at the property, cracking and raised issue about drainage. She said her path had turned green due to sitting water. The landlord’s call notes show the resident said she had been told not to decorate and wait for the cracks to get larger so the landlord could claim this through its insurer.
The landlord spoke to the resident again on 18 January 2023 and confirmed its surveyor would attend. It also issued its stage 1 response and apologised for the delay explaining it had a high volume of customer contact at that time. It said:
1. The complaint was about insulation and the resident wanted insulation works to be completed. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about thermal readings.
2. It had arranged an inspection and its surveyor would attend on 28 January 2023.
3. It upheld the complaint due to an internal error with the resident’s contact being sent to the wrong person. It offered £200 in compensation for this and said £50 of this amount was for its delayed stage 1 response.
On 22 January 2023 the resident responded to the landlord and said there was nothing in place to rectify the problems. She said she had incurred “major” heating costs since she moved to the property. She said she was registered disabled, her mother was disabled and that she lived at the property with a new born since June 2022. She told the landlord how her family was at “considerable risk” due to the lack of insulation at the property. The resident escalated her complaint at this time.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 26 January 2023 in relation to a complaint about drainage issues raised in November 2022. The Service has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s complaint. But within the landlord’s response it said:
1. Its area manager attended the property on 20 June 2022 to assess the drainage and subsidence issues. It said the issue was deemed “decorative in nature” and needed another visit.
2. It explained the resident was told a new drain would be installed along the side path and building outside of the property. It said the works were raised to address sitting water on the pathway. It said it had no start date for the work as its repairs team was awaiting a quote.
3. It apologised for the length of time taken to respond to the resident and the inconvenience caused by works carried out by its initial contractor.
4. In recognition of the issues it offered £350 as compensation and said £50 of this was for its delayed complaint response.
On 28 January 2023 the resident told the landlord that she was “amazed” how it could put the issue down to a decorative issue when there was “clearly movement cracks” at the property. She said the landlord was aware of the ongoing issue at the property and repeated the financial impact in decorating the property. She told it again that she was disabled and that she had 4 children under the age of 12 living at the property. She asked the landlord to look at the issue again and complete works.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact on 1 February 2023 and said it had passed it to the complaints team.
On 16 February 2023 the resident sent the landlord pictures of the property and told it about cracks. She repeated the financial hardship caused due to the costs of keeping the property warm. The landlord acknowledged the contact the following day.
On 2 March 2023 the landlord apologised for its delay in acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 complaint about the insulation issue. It said it had passed the complaint to the relevant team and would respond within 20 working days and provide an updated by no later than 29 March 2023. The resident responded the same day and said she wanted it to insulate the property, resolve the drainage issues and compensate her from the start of her tenancy. She repeated the impact of the situation on her financially and mentally.
Internal emails from 2 March 2023 note that the landlord’s contractor was attempting to arrange a joint visit with the surveyor. It also noted that the work was “50 days old” for the drainage issue.
On 8 March 2023 a further internal email noted a list of repairs, which included:
1. Installation of land drain between building and path – a quote was received and was with its surveyor to approve.
2. Insulation – it said it attended on 19 January 2023 to inspect and the issue was with the surveyor.
3. Wall above kitchen window was cracked. It attended on 22 February 2023 and completed works.
A further internal email from 20 March 2023 said the drain installation works would be completed on 31 March 2023. The following day it noted that its contractor may not be aware of the insulation works to the garage, it said it would look into the issue and raise some works.
On 23 March 2023 the resident said the contractor told her the drains it installed were “completely inadequate” and would not address the sitting water. The resident told the landlord that the path was green and slippery and had become a health and safety concern. The landlord acknowledged the contact the following day and said its relevant team would be in touch. On the same day, the landlord followed up on the works internally and said the works completed were what its surveyor requested.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord received a quote for work to the drain and was told that its contractor had completed the work at that time.
A further internal email from 28 March 2023 noted that the works completed had not resolved the drainage issue and it asked its contractor what further works were required to resolve the issue.
The landlord provided the resident with an update on 11 April 2023. It said the drainage issue formed part of the resident’s complaint and it was looking to find a way forward on the issue. It said the insulation works had been approved and it was awaiting an update on the next steps. It said its review of the resident’s complaint was ongoing and it would update her by 25 April 2023.
The landlord re-raised works for the drain issue on 11 April 2023. On 20 and 24 April 2023 it asked its contractor for an update on the drain works.
A further update was provided to the resident on 25 April 2023 where she was told the landlord was awaiting confirmation of a date it would complete drainage works. It said the drain issue formed part of the complaint and as such meant the conclusion of the complaint remained ongoing. It apologised for the delay and said it would update the resident by 10 May 2023. An internal email from the same date noted that the complaint was overdue.
The resident responded the same day and said she wanted to know more about the compensation the landlord was offering due to the ongoing situation and the impact of it on her and her family. She told it how her mother was unable to return to the property and had since sadly passed away. The landlord acknowledged the contact the following day.
On 27 April 2023 the landlord’s internal email said the quote it received for the drainage works was “significantly excessive” and that it would do the work to “extend the drain and channel the low spot” itself. It later said the works had been booked for 16 May 2023.
An internal email from 10 May 2023 noted a contractor had requested an asbestos survey before it could complete work to the garage.
The landlord provided another update to the resident on 12 May 2023 about her complaint response. It said the drainage works would be attended to on 16 May 2023 and it had requested an asbestos survey. It said it would update the resident by 26 May 2023. The resident responded on the same day and said it had not responded to her questions about compensation and the costs to decorate the property. The landlord acknowledged the contact on 15 May 2023.
The asbestos survey was completed on 21 May 2023 and the landlord was provided with its surveyor’s report on 30 May 2023.
The landlord provided the resident with a further update on 30 May 2023. It apologised for contacting the resident 1 day later than it said it would. It explained how it was liaising with its repairs team and surveyor about the insulation issue. It said once the insulation works had completed it could conclude the complaint and would assign the works to a named member of staff to update the resident. It said the drainage works went ahead on 16 May 2023 and said it would provide another update by 14 June 2023.
On 31 May 2023 the landlord requested the removal of asbestos to the garage ceiling.
On 1 June 2023 the resident thanked the landlord for its update. She said it had not addressed her questions. She confirmed the drainage works were completed but said the original contractor had installed the drain too high and it had not provided a date for when it would “reset” the drains. She asked for an update on the insulation issue and told it that she had 2 young children who had asthma and would not be able to stay at the property while it completed works.
In June 2023 a number of internal emails show the landlord was following up on works with its contractor. Its contractor attended on 14 June 2023 to scope the work. The landlord provided a further update to the resident on 16 June 2023. It said it was chasing senior managers reviewing the case to action the insulation and feedback from its inspection. It said it would continue to chase and aimed to resolve the complaint by 30 June 2023 or sooner.
On 28 June 2023 the landlord’s contractor said works were booked for 25 to 27 July 2023. It said the resident asked for a decant and followed up on this internally. The contractor also told the landlord that it needed to isolate the gas, electricity and water supply before the work could start.
The landlord provided an update to the resident on 30 June 2023. It said a surveyor visit was required to review the internal cracks and the previous drainage works that it attended to in May 2023. It said its surveyor would contact the resident directly and that the outcome of the inspection would be included in its complaint and compensation review. The landlord apologised for the delay and said it would contact the resident again by 17 July 2023.
The resident thanked the landlord for its update on 6 July 2023 and told it of the continued delay with finalising works at the property. She asked when it would insulate the garage ceiling following the removal of asbestos. She told it she had not received any contact from its contractor. She repeated how the drainage was at two different heights and that she did not understand the continued delay. She asked for a full update before the 17 July 2023 as she was unhappy to stay at the property while it removed asbestos. She repeated how she and 2 of her children suffered with asthma. An internal email from the same day shows the landlord’s attempt to gain answers to the resident’s questions and whether she could be decanted. The internal email said it would visit the property on 12 July 2023.
On 10 July 2023 the landlord apologised for the resident’s experiences and for the inconvenience caused. It told the resident that it had passed the resident’s contact to another team.
In July 2023 there were a number of internal emails which show:
1. The landlord discussed decanting the resident due to no gas and water at the property during the time of works.
2. It was arranging insulation of the garage for after 27 July 2023.
3. It accepted the drains were at 2 different levels.
4. It was trying to establish what else was required for the rainwater issue.
5. Following a visit to the property on 12 July 2023, the landlord noted there was a lot of cracking to most rooms along the walls and ceilings with some vertical signs.
On 14 July 2023 the landlord provided the resident with another update. It said its surveyor attended on 12 July 2023 and it was awaiting for an action plan following the inspection. It said it would contact the resident again by 31 July 2023 with a further update.
The resident asked for an urgent update on 22 July 2023. She said the asbestos was being removed on 25 July 2023 but she had no dates for when the new insulation and roof would be completed. She also told it how she did not know when it would rectify the issue with the drains at different levels, the cavity wall insulation and multiple cracks within the property. She said she had no update on works and needed it urgently as she had been asked to leave the property for 1 month without knowing the landlord’s planned works. The landlord acknowledged the contact on 24 July 2023 but did not respond to the contents of the email. The resident contacted it again on 25 July 2022 asking when it would reinstate the garage ceiling.
Further internal notes show the landlord’s contractor asked for the garage door to be removed on 25 July 2023. Following this, on 28 July 2023 the resident told the landlord that her garage door had been removed and that her belongings had been left exposed. The landlord told the resident to contact its repairs team to see if it could make the garage safe. The repair logs notes the garage door was to be reinstated on 28 July 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day to apologise for not providing the full details of works before she called it. It said the query about the garage door had been passed to a senior manager who would contact her about the issue. It said it would collate details to conclude the complaint and review the compensation. It agreed to continue to support the resident until works had completed and would name a point of contact to monitor the works. It said it aimed to conclude the complaint by 14 August 2023.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 2 August 2023 and listed the actions required which included the removal of the asbestos ceiling in the garage, pending works to the garage door and rain water channel. It also listed works identified by it surveyor which included the insulation of the property and cracking to walls and ceilings. It said its surveyor was to confirm details.
Following the above, internal emails show the landlord was discussing the drain works. It noted works were completed as per its surveyor’s recommendation and it discussed a further visit to the property.
On 14 August 2023 the landlord told the resident its final response was awaiting sign off. The resident responded the following day confirming the points she wanted the landlord to consider including the condition of the property, the coldness of the property which meant her mother could not return from palliative care and the hardship caused by the costs of heating the property. She told it again that she was registered disabled with young children. She asked it for a direct contact until the work had completed and told it to consider the repairs and replacements needed at the property due to movement. She said the situation had been “exhausting” and that she was under financial stress. The landlord acknowledged the contact the same day and said it passed it to its relevant team.
On 16 August 2023 the landlord issued its final response about the cavity wall insulation and drainage issues. It apologised for its delayed response and said:
1. Following the surveyor’s inspection in January 2023 it made a referral to insulate the garage ceiling. It conducted an asbestos survey and recommended its removal in May 2023. It then removed the asbestos and booked works for 28 August 2023. It said the work would include reinstating the garage ceiling and some minor adjustments to the garage door. It said it would continue to liaise with the resident to monitor the work.
2. In relation to further insulation work it said it had referred the resident’s property to its planned investment team to incorporate works within the next planned works programme. It said the team would contact the resident once the programme of works was agreed.
3. It confirmed that the property was previously underpinned and a large tree was removed. It said it arranged for structural engineers to attend to complete an inspection to recommend further works before it could address the cracks.
4. In relation to the drainage issues it said its area manager attended on 20 June 2022 to inspect the reports of poor drainage. It said follow on drainage works to fit a new drain alongside the path and building had been raised. It repeated its stage 1 response that it was not able to confirm a date at that time.
5. It attended on 15 March 2023 to seal the external side of a window on the first floor and break away concrete and make good around the garage door to allow it to shut fully. It attended for drainage work on 31 March 2023 but as the resident reported the water was not draining as expected it requested another contractor attend to complete a post inspection. It said this work was then completed on 16 May 2023. It said it noticed the rain water channel fitted had broken and it repaired a section but “the falls” still needed rectifying.
6. It apologised for the delay and said it had arranged for its surveyor to attend on 16 August 2023 to inspect the rain water drain in attempts to resolve the drainage issue. It said it would complete any recommendations from the visit and its surveyor would monitor this.
7. In recognition of the issues it offered the resident £900 compensation, made up of:
  1. £550 it already offered in its stage 1 responses.
  2. £100 due to a delay in responding to a peer review.
  3. £250 discretionary compensation in relation to the drainage works.

Post internal complaints process

On 21 March 2024 the landlord told this Service that the complaint was not fully resolved as the “potential” subsidence issue was being monitored and a final visit was due. It said a structural engineer would confirm if there was any further movement and it would advise of the remedial works. It said cavity wall insulation would not be appropriate to install while the structural work was ongoing and it was arranging a visit to take place as soon as possible.
On 10 May 2024 this Service spoke to the resident who said that despite 2 surveys the landlord had not done anything since. She said:
1. The property still had no cavity insulation throughout. The landlord insulated the garage ceiling but did not insulate the rest of the property.
2. Her mother was in palliative care and she could not bring her home due to the temperature within the property. She said a social worker wrote to the landlord about this. She explained how she could not spend the last weeks with her mother due to the issue with the property.
3. Despite her concerns about movement the landlord has not done anything. She explains how she feels the house has moved causing gaps and cracks. She mentioned the costs to keep on top of decorating with the movement was unreasonable.
4. The cost of her bills were around £100 a week to heat the property.
5. The landlord did not do anything to ensure the property was ready after void works.
6. The drain issue was not resolved as one drain was still higher than the other.

Assessment and findings

Handling of concerns about the condition of the property when it was let

The property was void between January and December 2020. During the void period the landlord surveyed the property for structural issues, it completed reinforced structural repairs and decorated the property. The landlord’s health and safety file from 20 November 2020 said it monitored the property between April to August 2020 and found it was stable at that time.
The landlord completed a test of the electricity at the property on 22 October 2020, this found the overall condition “unsatisfactory” and listed items where remedial actions were required. There is no evidence to show the landlord completed the remedial actions at that time or that it obtained a further electrical safety certificate before it let the property, it did this despite its obligations under HHSRS. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s failings meant the resident had to report the electrical issue after she had moved into the property with her young children telling it of “exposed wires”. While it is noted that the landlord acted quickly to resolve the issue once reported to it, it may have exposed the resident and her young family to a potential electrical hazard. The landlord’s actions would have caused the resident avoidable upset and worry.
Overall, the landlord’s failure to meet the minimum standard detailed in its void’s policy and its failure to complete remedial work to the electrics before the property was let to the resident was not appropriate and amounts to severe maladministration.

Handling of insulation issues within the property

The resident told the landlord the property was “freezing” in January 2021 and about the financial impact of the costs of heating. She repeated this in her contact from November 2021 and told it about the lack of insulation at the property. There is no evidence to show the landlord investigated the concerns about insulation at that time.
The resident repeated her concerns about the lack of insulation in December 2022 and said the insulation between the garage and the bedroom above it was inadequate. It was at this time the landlord was told that this bedroom was unsuitable for the resident’s mother who was due to return from palliative care, it is understood that the resident’s mother did not return to the property. In January 2023 the landlord was told that the resident and her mother were disabled and that she lived at the property with young children. It took the landlord 2 years, from the resident’s initial report in January 2021, to confirm that it would inspect the property on 28 January 2023. The timeframe taken to inspect the property was not appropriate.
Despite requests the landlord has not provided a copy of its survey from January 2023. The garage ceiling was removed in August 2023, following an asbestos survey and the landlord has since insulated the garage ceiling. However, the landlord took 8 months, after its survey to insulate the garage ceiling, this timeframe was not appropriate.
Between January and August 2023 the landlord repeatedly told the resident that the insulation issue of the overall property was with its surveyor. However, in its stage 2 response it said it had referred the resident’s property to its planned investment team to incorporate works into its 2024/25 planned works programme. While the landlord can decide whether the works were suited for its planned works programme, it failed to provide consistent information about this and explain why this was an appropriate route for its vulnerable resident and her young family. Furthermore, it has since told the Service that it would install cavity wall insulation once it had investigated the structural concerns about the property.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the insulation of the property was not appropriate. It took the landlord 2 years to investigate the resident’s reports of issues with insulation despite it being aware of a potential excess cold hazard and its obligations under HHSRS. When it did eventually inspect the property it failed to explain why works would not include insulation to the whole property. It later provided contradictory information on when it would complete insulation works and the issue remains outstanding without a clear plan of how it seeks to resolve matters for a vulnerable resident and her young family.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord about the financial impact and hardship caused when heating the “freezing” property. She also told it her mother could not return following palliative care due to this and her mother has since sadly passed away. It is accepted that this would have been a difficult time for the resident and the landlord’s approach, over a number of years, would have exacerbated an already difficult and upsetting time for her. The landlord’s failings here amount to severe maladministration.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it acknowledged its delay in handling the insulation issue and offered the resident £150 in recognition of this. When considering the landlord’s failings over a significant time and that the issue remains outstanding, a greater compensation amount would be more appropriate in the circumstances.
When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered along with the scale of the landlord’s failings and the impact of this on the resident’s enjoyment of her home for a significant period of time. As such a rent-based compensation of 15% has been decided as appropriate in the circumstances. The tenancy agreement quotes two figures for monthly rent; £660.81 and £596.86. As the issue remains ongoing and this calculation is not exact, the higher figure has been used. This means 15% of £660.81 is £99.12 a month.
When deciding an appropriate timeframe for compensation, the landlord took 24 months to investigate the resident’s concerns. It then took a further 8 months to insulate the garage. However, it is acknowledged that it decanted the resident during that time. As such, 32 months has been decided as an appropriate timeframe (£99.12 x 32 = £3,171.84). While this award is based on the level of rent, it is not intended as a ‘rent reduction’.
It is also noted that throughout the resident’s contact with the landlord she repeatedly told it about the financial impact of heating the property and said this was due to the lack of insulation. It is acknowledged that inadequate insulation may make it difficult for a property to maintain heat. When considering the aggravating factors here and that the issue remains outstanding the Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation in light of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.

Handling of drainage works at the property

In January 2023 the resident raised concerns about the landlord not installing drains to a path alongside the property. Within its stage 1 response from 26 January 2023 the landlord confirmed it would complete this work and did on 22 March 2023. However, the following day the resident reported the work was “inadequate” to drain the flooding down the path. She said water did not reach the newly installed drain and it made the path a “health and safety” concern for her and her young children.
It took the landlord until 11 April 2023 to raise the works and on 16 May 2023 it extended the drain. The overall timeframe of 5 months to complete this work was not appropriate in the circumstances.
On 1 June 2023 the resident told the landlord that the drains were not functioning due to drains on the property being at different heights. The landlord’s internal notes from 15 June 2023 acknowledged that the drains did not run a “soakaway” and further notes from July 2023 confirm that the drains were at different heights. However, despite what its vulnerable resident told it, the works remain outstanding.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of drainage works at the property was not appropriate. The landlord failed to monitor whether the work it completed resolved the issue. It is recognised it did some work and attempted to fix the issue, this has lessened the impact of its failings. However, some work remains outstanding and when considering this the landlord’s failings here amount to maladministration.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses it offered the resident £550 compensation in recognition of its handling of the drainage issue. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedy guidance has been considered. While the amount may have been appropriate had the landlord resolved the issue, as it is still outstanding and the landlord has made no attempts to resolve the issue since its stage 2 response the Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation.

Response to concerns about subsidence and movement of the property

The landlord was aware of historical movement and subsidence issues at the property and while it monitored this during the void period, it failed to monitor once the resident had moved into the property. This was not appropriate.
When the resident reported movement at the property in January 2021, it took the landlord 15 months, until April 2022, to complete a further structural survey. This timeframe was not appropriate especially considering what the landlord already knew about the property.
At that time the surveyor found cracking at the property and said it was due to “possible further structural movement” and thermal movement given the property was unheated during the void period. The surveyor recommended the landlord monitor the cracking over 12 months and conduct soil investigations. There is no evidence to show the landlord did this. This was also not appropriate.
The landlord’s area manager attended the property on 20 June 2022 and said the subsidence/movement issue was “decorative in nature and would not need a returned visit”. It said this despite what it already knew about the property and the resident’s vulnerabilities. This again was not appropriate.
Throughout 2023 the resident repeated concerns about the property suffering from movement, cracks appearing and the costs of maintaining the property due to these issues. The landlord’s surveyor’s visit from 12 July 2023 noted “a lot of cracking to most rooms” at the property and within its stage 2 response from August 2023, it said a structural engineer would attend to complete an inspection and recommend further works. However, there is no evidence to show it completed a further structural survey and in March 2024 it told this Service that it was monitoring the “potential” subsidence issue and its structural engineer would confirm if there was any further movement.
The landlord’s handling of concerns about subsidence and movement at the property was poor. It knew about the issues in 2020 and was told of possible further movement from January 2021 onwards but failed to monitor, investigate or resolve the issue appropriately. The landlord repeatedly missed opportunities to resolve what the resident, with vulnerabilities, told it and what its previous surveyor’s recommended. The resident has said the issue remains outstanding. The landlord’s failings here amounts to severe maladministration.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response from 26 January 2023, it records how the resident said she was told not to decorate and to allow the cracks at the property to get larger so a claim could be made through the landlord’s insurer. It is unclear what the landlord’s position is in relation to this. However, it is important to explain that while it is not for this Service to comment on the merits of an insurance claim, we would not expect a landlord to deliberately delay completing work that it is responsible for.

Complaint handling

The resident raised an initial complaint on 8 January 2021 and referred the landlord to this again on 25 November 2021. Despite the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction, the landlord failed to trigger its complaints process at both these times. This was not appropriate.
On 8 November 2022 the resident complained about the drainage, subsidence and movement issues at the property. While this Service has not been provided with a copy of the complaint, the landlord failed to respond to it within a reasonable time and took until 26 January 2023 to issue its stage 1 response. This timeframe was not appropriate.
On 9 December 2022 the resident raised a complaint about insulation at the property. At that time, the landlord said it was recovering from a cyber security incident, however, it did not issue its stage 1 response until 18 January 2023. This timeframe again was not appropriate.
On 22 and 28 January 2023 the resident escalated her complaints and while the landlord appropriately acknowledged this on 1 February 2023, it failed to respond for a further 6 months. This was not appropriate and exceeded the timeframe the Ombudsman said a landlord must not exceed.
It is noted that between February and August 2023 the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord for an update and response to her complaint. She told it about the condition of the property, her disability and that she lived at the property with young children. It is acknowledged that between 2 March and 14 August 2023 the landlord sent 10 update emails to the resident about her complaint. However, within its contact it set deadlines that it did not always meet, its updates were not always meaningful and it remains unclear why it was unable to issue a stage 2 response sooner. The landlord’s approach at that time, in not concluding its complaints process while works were outstanding, was not reasonable or appropriate especially when it did eventually issue a response with works outstanding.
The landlord’s overall complaint handling was not appropriate. It is acknowledged that it suffered a cyber security attack in June 2022, However, it failed to trigger its complaints process before this and when it did eventually trigger its complaints process it failed to meet the timeframe it set within its policy and those the Ombudsman said it must not exceed. While it did provide updates to the resident, it is unclear why it could not provide a meaningful response to the resident’s complaints sooner. The landlord complaint handling amounts to severe maladministration.
Throughout the landlord’s complaints process it offered the resident £200, in total, in recognition of its complaint handling failings. When considering the landlord’s repeated complaint handling failings over a significant time, a greater compensation amount would be more appropriate in the circumstances. The Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation.
It is important to explain that usually when such complaint handling failings are found, the Ombudsman would make orders for the landlord to improve its complaint handling process. However, due to prior work with landlord via a Special Investigation similar complaint handling failings were found and a number of recommendations were made which included improvements to response times as well as the quality and consistency of complaint responses, amongst other things. Due to this work with the landlord, the Ombudsman has made no further orders for complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of concerns about the condition of the property when it was let.
2. Handling of insulation issues within the property.
3. Response to concerns about subsidence and movement of the property.
4. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of drainage works at the property.

Reasons

The landlord failed to meet the minimum standard of its void’s policy for electrical work and has not provided evidence to show it completed remedial actions or obtained a further electrical safety certificate following its unsatisfactory report. The landlord’s failings meant it may have exposed the resident and her young family to a potential electrical hazard.
The landlord took 24 months to investigate the resident’s concerns about insulation. It then took a further 8 months to insulate the garage ceiling and the overall insulation of the property remains outstanding. The landlord also provided unclear information about when it would insulate the rest of the property in telling the resident it was passed to its planned works programme and then telling this Service it would install insulation once the structural concerns had been investigated. It did this despite what the resident, with vulnerabilities and with young children, told it about the coldness within the property.
The landlord did complete some work to the drains, but it failed to assess whether the work resolved the issue. It has accepted that drains to the property are at different heights and made an offer of compensation within its stage 2 response. However, it has failed to resolve the issue or explain why it could not.
Despite what the landlord already knew about movement at the property it took 15 months to completed a further structural survey. It then did not follow the actions its surveyor recommended and failed to monitor, investigate or resolve the issue. Instead it told the resident the issue was “decorative”. While it said a structural engineer would inspect the property in August 2023, it has still not done this or explained why it could not.
The landlord initially failed to trigger its complaints process and when it eventually did, it failed to respond with the timeframes set within its policy. The landlord took 6 months to issue a stage 2 response and while it continued to provide updates during this time, it remains unclear why it delayed in concluding its internal complaints process.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for its chief executive to apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified within this report. This should be within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £6,771.84 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Compenstion should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears:
1. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the condition of the property when it was let to the resident.
2. £3,171.84 rental based compensation to acknowledge the landlord’s failure to appropriately address the reports of insulation issues within the property.
3. £1,500 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of insulation issues at the property.
4. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of drainage works.
5. £800 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of subsidence and movement issues.
6. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
7. The above amounts include its previous offer of £900, if it has not paid this already.
The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord conducts an inspection of the property, by a suitable qualified specialist, to assess its condition and decide the further work required. This is to include, but not limited to, an inspection of the structure of the property, an inspection of the drains and the internal insulation of the property. Within 2 weeks of this inspection, the landlord should provide a copy of its survey(s) to this Service and resident. It should confirm in writing:
1. If further work is required to the property. The landlord should provide a schedule of works setting out what works is required and the timeframe for when it will complete the works. This should also include details of post works inspections. The landlord should explain the approach it adopts relying on the opinion of a specialist.
2. The measures it will put in place to monitor whether the proposed work remedy the issues at the property.