Sanctuary Housing Association (202224022)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224022

Sanctuary Housing Association

19 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. subsidence in the property;
2. repairs to the shower.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which commenced in 2011. The property is an adapted 3-bedroom end-of-terrace house. The resident is registered disabled and has a number of health conditions known to the landlord, including Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES), drop foot, anxiety and depression. Some of these conditions affect her mobility, require pain management, and are exacerbated by the cold.

Subsidence

In August 2017, a large tree was removed from the resident’s rear garden. The resident first started to notice movement and damage to her property in 2018.
On 1 January 2019 the resident reported gaps around her door frame. The landlord’s operative attended on 23 January 2019 and requested a further visit by a surveyor due to suspected subsidence. The surveyor visited on 29 January 2019. They confirmed the presence of subsidence, completed a subsidence checklist, and contacted the landlord’s insurers on 4 February 2019.
On 26 July 2019 the landlord requested that an order was raised to its contractor for a structural survey. This was completed on 1 August 2019. The landlord received a report from its contractor on 2 or 5 August 2019, but this stated an incorrect address and was apparently not progressed. After the resident requested an update on 13 September 2019, the landlord documented on 17 September 2019 that the necessary works would be sent to a different contractor “in due course”. It explained the process to the resident.
On 16 October 2019 the resident contacted the landlord in some distress, after an operative who attended to complete a repair told her the property was unsafe for her to live in. On 21 October 2019 the landlord noted that an appointment would need to be made for its loss adjusters to inspect the property. Following the inspection, the landlord’s insurer advised the landlord that it had accepted its claim on 29 November 2019. It provided a technical report which stated that the “whole house has been subject to movement”. It categorised the damage as “very severe”. The report attributed cracking to an episode of foundation movement caused by clay shrinkage or heave. It noted that shrinkage may be induced by tree roots, and the most likely cause of heave was removal of large trees. It recommended investigation in relation to 2 remaining nearby trees, and monitoring to determine the nature of movement and the appropriate timescale for repairs.
Monitoring of the property was carried out between February 2020 and March 2021. On 15 September 2020 the resident reported that subsidence had caused large gaps around her living room and dining room windows and front door, resulting in cold air entering the property. She said this was making her health condition worse. The landlord completed work to fill the gaps on 23 October 2020.
The landlord received a report containing results of the subsidence monitoring on 9 March 2021. On 19 March 2021 it also received a report from its contractor relating to a site inspection completed at a nearby location in February 2021. This stated that excavation of 2 trial pits had failed due to the nature of the ground. Samples taken from competitor rig boreholes indicated that the clay soil had high plasticity and was susceptible to movement. The contractor suggested that the movement may be due to contamination from a nearby drainage system and/or the influence of trees. It recommended a CCTV survey of the drainage system and pollarding of the trees (in consultation with a qualified arboriculturist).
On 17 April 2021 the resident reported that her back door would not shut properly. The landlord repaired the bolt locks on 20 July 2021. The resident then reported cracks to her property on 13 September 2021. The landlord carried out an inspection on 21 September 2021. It then liaised internally regarding the case between 22 September 2021 and 21 October 2021. It also sought advice from a specialist contractor on 20 October 2021. As its previous surveyor had left the organisation, it allocated a new point of contact to the case. It decided to continue monitoring the property, but did not answer a question from its insurance team regarding the expected cost of the repairs.
On 22 October 2021 the resident reported that the bottom of her rear door was not securing. The landlord carried out a repair the same day. On 8 December 2021 the resident reported that 2 of her bedroom windows would not close, leaving her property “very cold”. The landlord noted that she was vulnerable and completed repairs on 9 December 2021.
On 18 January 2022 the landlord arranged for its specialist contractor to carry out a structural inspection of the property. The resulting report, provided on 29 January 2022, concluded that the property had suffered foundation movement caused by the action of nearby large trees on the shrinkable clay subsoil. It noted that most of the movement had occurred at the built-in movement joint and was not structurally hazardous. However, it also stated that “the path and driveway to the front of the house was uneven to the extent that the raised manhole cover presents a trip hazard to the occupant, who has restricted mobility”. It found most of the windows to be “in fair condition”, although the rear bedroom window required reinstallation or replacement. It further noted that “the kitchen door … was in poor condition with the casements virtually unusable and the glass pane cracked due to distortion of the frame”. It recommended possible methods of addressing the subsidence, including removal of the remaining trees, underpinning the property, or treating the affected soil with injected geopolymer. However, it was clear that “as the kitchen door and windows have an immediate impact on the security and usability of the house, these should be repaired as soon as possible”.
On 31 January 2022 the landlord instructed its contractor to obtain quotes for geopolymer injection treatment. The same day, an internal email queried whether it would order the recommended window and patio repairs, and it replied “we will but not yet sure when”.
On 12 May 2022 the resident told the landlord that she was “waiting for repairs to start on my house”. She said that due to the subsidence, her back door was held closed by 2 clips and she had to close it by putting her hand through a broken window. She said she found this difficult due to her disability, and continued to be affected by cold conditions in the property. The landlord replied on 7 June 2022 that its contractor would be in touch shortly.
The resident chased the repair to her back door lock on 30 June 2022. The landlord could not locate an existing job so raised an urgent external job. On 6 July 2022, the resident called the landlord to advise that its contractor had attended and attempted to secure the door, but they said the issue was with the structure of the property. The resident then made a further report regarding the back door lock on 20 July 2022, noting that having to lean through the window to lock the door from the inside was causing issues with her back.
On 16 August 2022 the landlord received an email from the resident’s occupational therapist. This referred to the issue with the resident’s back door. The resident also complained to the landlord on this date, stating:
1. For around 5 years her house had been subsiding. The landlord had agreed it was subsiding and that work needed to be done. The movement had been monitored for a year.
2. Her back door had not fit its frame for years. The glass also cracked years ago. No one had come to fix it although she had reported the issue many times. The door had fallen off and she had 2 plastic clips screwed in to keep it closed. Most days she could not bend far enough to unclip the bottom one because of her disability.
3. All her windows had “popped” and did not fit in the frames properly. They were extremely draughty and she struggled to open and close some of them.
4. She had a meeting with “3 important men” in January 2022 in relation to getting her house fixed, but she had heard nothing since.
5. When she recently complained about the issue with her back door, the landlord sent a locksmith. She found this disrespectful as it was aware she had to shut her back door from the outside. The locksmith said to her, and documented, that her property was insecure.
6. A drain in the middle of her front path had been rising out of the ground over the past few years. At the meeting in January 2022, the landlord noted how dangerous it was. She told them she had tripped over and slid on it. She had not had a bad fall yet, but felt it was only a matter of time. She felt action would only be taken when she had a bad accident.
7. Her mental health was “going downhill again” due to the prospect of spending another winter “freezing in extreme pain, while wasting my benefits trying to keep my house warm”.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 August 2022 and said it would respond by 14 September 2022. On 30 August 2022 it obtained an explanation of the back door issue from its contractor, and on 31 August 2022 it sought an internal update on the subsidence repairs. Its point of contact replied that it was in the process of seeking a specification and costs from a specialist contractor, but the contract was overwhelmed with work and no other specialist was available. The landlord updated the resident on 3 September 2022 and raised a new repair in relation to the back door on 6 September 2022.
After liaising internally regarding the resident’s case and its insurance claim, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 September 2022. This provided a summary of events since 1 January 2019, and stated:
1. Its contractor that visited to repair the back door in July 2022 advised that due to subsidence, the rollers were not meeting the keeps.
2. It had requested feedback from its contractor that inspected the property in January 2022, and would contact the resident within 10 working days with a further update.
3. It assured her that the delays and lack of communication she had experienced would be redressed once it had an estimated timeframe for the subsidence repairs and could propose a final resolution to the complaint.
The landlord then continued to liaise internally regarding the subsidence repairs. On 11 October 2022 the resident followed up the repairs, noting “it’s been nearly a month now” and “I would like answers and work done on my house”. She then submitted a further complaint form on 25 October 2022. The landlord issued a follow-up stage 1 response on 18 November 2022, stating:
1. It apologised for its delay in contacting the resident.
2. It was awaiting the availability of a structural engineer to attend her property.
3. It assured her that the subsidence works were being monitored by the relevant regional team and its surveyor would provide updates.
4. It trusted this resolved the complaint, but if the resident remained unhappy, she could request escalation. If it did not hear from her within 10 working days, the complaint would be closed.
On 23 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding an unauthorised alteration to her front garden. The resident emailed the landlord in reply on 30 November 2022, referring to the ongoing subsidence and the issues being caused by trees on the neighbouring field. She asked for all future correspondence to be in writing. The landlord closed the resident’s complaint on 4 December 2022, documenting that no response had been received.
On 15 December 2022 the landlord apologised to the resident for “the way you have been treated over the years as described in your email”. It said it would pass her email of 30 November 2022 on to its surveyor, who would contact her.
On 4 January 2023 the resident tripped over the raised drain in her front garden and suffered a fall. She approached this Service for assistance in relation to the subsidence repairs on 5 January 2023, and following intervention by the Ombudsman on 10 January 2023, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2. It acknowledged the escalation request on 12 January 2023.
On 13 January 2023 the landlord instructed its contractor to carry out a further inspection of the property and advise on the structural repairs required. On 17 January 2023 it received a quote of £31,173 (plus VAT) for geopolymer injection treatment. It sent this to its insurance team as the quote exceeded the excess limit of £25,000.
On 16 January 2023 the landlord received an invoice in relation to repairs to the uneven footpath and exposed drain inspection chamber. On 21 January 2023 the contractor dealing with the footpath repair advised that the uneven footpath was likely to be related to the subsidence affecting the property. It recommended an inspection by a structural engineer before costs for repairing the footpath were provided.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 8 February 2023. This stated that:
1. To investigate the complaint, it had reviewed all available system notes and records.
2. It again provided a summary of events. It was unclear from its records what the outcome was when its surveyor submitted a subsidence checklist and photos following their visit on 29 January 2019.
3. It could see there had been numerous work orders to repair the resident’s back door due to subsidence issues, but a permanent solution had not yet been implemented.
4. It was sorry there had been significant delays in obtaining a quote for the works required. The delays were due to it awaiting costs from a specialist which advised that it was overwhelmed with work.
5. It had now received the quote. Due to the costs involved, it had sent the quote to its insurer and asked for a loss adjuster to be allocated before the works could commence. It had asked to be kept informed when a commencement date for the works was agreed.
6. An urgent work order was issued to its contractor on 16 January 2023 to inspect the footpath. It had asked the relevant team to confirm if this was attended and, if so, what the outcome was.
7. It upheld the complaint.
8. The time taken to resolve the issues raised was longer than it would like, and there had been times when its communication could have been more proactive. It had found evidence of unclear record keeping.
9. It also found there to have been complaint handling failings. It had delayed in responding to the complaint and its communication had been poor throughout the complaint.
10. It offered its sincere apologies for the delays and inconvenience the resident had experienced.
11. It would raise the issues it had found with the appropriate senior managers in order to improve the level of service it provided in future.
12. It felt that an offer of redress was appropriate. It would normally make this as part of its formal response. However, as the works remained outstanding, it suggested this was reviewed once it had a full and final scope of works and an anticipated completion date. It hoped the resident agreed to this approach, which would allow it to consider the full impact of the time taken when it made its offer.
13. It proposed writing to the resident within 10 working days of the anticipated completion date being confirmed.
On 11 February 2023, an email from the landlord’s contractor advised that the property was “severely subsiding” and “it is impossible to shut the doors due to how much the building has moved”. An internal email by the landlord on the same day stated that the back door was unsafe as it did not lock, and there were also gaps around the door due to subsidence.
Between February 2023 and February 2024, the landlord was in dispute with its insurer regarding the repairs that were necessary to address subsidence in the property and how these would be funded.
On 16 March 2023 the landlord’s stage 2 responder apologised to the resident that they did not yet have an update in relation to the repairs. They said they had escalated the matter and would continue to chase it. The resident contacted the landlord to chase the repairs on 10 April 2023, noting that she was still in pain from her fall and referring to the impact on her mental health. The landlord again apologised for its delays on 17 and 19 April 2023.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord’s specialist contractor provided a quote for further investigation works. The works were carried out on 14 June 2023. The contractor’s resulting quote for the geopolymer treatment works, provided on 1 July 2023, stated that these would total £63,968 plus VAT (including drain monitoring and associated costs).
The resident continued to chase the subsidence repairs and to pursue her complaint with this Service. The landlord updated her and reiterated its apology for the delays on 12 July 2023, 21 September 2023, and 17 October 2023. The resident reported that she had tripped over the raised drain again on 17 October 2023.
On 19 October 2023 the landlord’s structural contractor contacted it after reviewing the proposal and quotation by its specialist geopolymer injection contractor. It outlined 2 options: repairing the superstructure of the property and “hoping for the best”, or stabilising the foundation (with the protected trees remaining in place). It recommended the second option and supported the specialist contractor’s proposal. On 2 November 2023 the landlord and its contractor carried out a joint visit.
On 13 November 2023 the landlord raised a new job in relation to the uneven footpath. On 14 November 2023 its surveyor carried out a CCTV survey of the drains.
On 22 November 2023 the structural contractor wrote to the landlord to follow up the visit on 2 November 2023. It proposed carrying out repairs to the superstructure of the property without the foundation stabilisation works. However, on 18 January 2024 the landlord recommended internally that it carried out the stabilisation works. It sought a quote for replacement doors and windows, and an updated quotation for geopolymer injection treatment, on or around 2 February 2024.
The quote for doors and windows was received on 15 April 2024. The landlord was advised that the lead time for the doors and windows would be 6-8 weeks, and for the geopolymer injection treatment would be 4-6 weeks. By 26 June 2024 the lead time for the doors and windows had increased to 10 weeks, and funding had not been confirmed. On this date the landlord’s regional director asked its senior surveyor to take ownership of the case through to completion.
In July 2024 the landlord informed this Service that some window repairs had been completed, but replacement of remaining windows would not take place until the subsidence works had been completed. It confirmed that the works quoted for in July 2023 had been approved.

Shower repairs

On 16 May 2022 the landlord raised an urgent repair in relation to the resident’s wet room shower door handle. It issued this to its contractor on 17 May 2022.
On 20 July 2022 the resident reported that her electric shower was not working. She noted that this was her only form of bathing. She said she found it difficult to stand and strip wash due to her disability. The landlord logged a case with its wellbeing team to track the repair through to completion. Its contractor attended and reported back that a new shower was required.
The landlord’s wellbeing team called the resident on 21 July 2022 and she explained that she had a damaged sciatic nerve, so struggled to hand wash. On 25 July 2022 the landlord confirmed with the contractor that follow-on works were required and were awaiting sign off. The landlord updated the resident on 26 July 2022. It then chased the repair internally on 4 August 2022, noting that the resident had been without bathing since 20 July 2022. The shower replacement was authorised on 5 August 2022 and completed on 15 August 2022. The landlord made a completion call to the resident on 16 August 2022.
Also on 16 August 2022, an email to the landlord from the resident’s occupational therapist referred to ongoing issues with the resident’s shower doors. The resident then complained to the landlord the same day, stating that:
1. She had a wet room that was installed the previous year. The plastic clips on the shower door had broken months ago, and an operative who attended said they had to be ordered. She had heard nothing since.
2. She had had a fall in her bathroom a couple of months earlier. The shower doors had folded in on her because they were not clipped. She ended up flooding her bathroom, which caused staining to her living room ceiling.
3. When her shower broke recently, she was identified as a priority and allocated to the landlord’s wellbeing team. She understood the team’s role was to help chase the job and make sure her mental health was looked after during the repair. However, she was forgotten and received a long voicemail from the landlord apologising for this.
4. She felt she was being ignored by the landlord, including by a team who were meant to help people like her in difficult situations. This made her feel “like I am unimportant, I don’t matter, they don’t care, why bother, I’m not worthy”.
On 26 August 2022 the landlord logged a repair in relation to the resident’s shower cutting out. On 31 August 2022 its contractor invoiced it for an emergency callout and noted that a replacement shower was required. On 9 September 2022 the resident told the landlord that a plumber who had attended in relation to her shower repair said she needed an electrician. The landlord noted internally that the contractor should have reported this themselves rather than asking the resident to inform it.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 15 September 2022, the landlord provided a summary of reports received in relation to the shower, repairs raised and works carried out. It confirmed that the works were completed on 15 August 2022. It noted the resident’s comments regarding the handling of her shower repairs and accepted that this had been a difficult time for her.
The same day (15 September 2022), the resident replied to the landlord and advised that there were “a couple of issues still outstanding with my bathroom”. She said that the handles on the shower doors still had not been replaced; she had a call from the landlord’s contractor in August 2022 to say they were coming that day to repair the handles (and also install a new high toilet), but nobody showed up. She was also waiting for her shower to be fixed, as it “turns off at random times”. An operative who had visited said this was due to an issue with the earth wire. While the repair remained outstanding, she had to go to the fuse box with shampoo in her hair and switch it on and off to try and start it again. She had been told she was “on the top of a list” the previous day.
The landlord enquired internally regarding the shower repairs on 22 September 2022, and on 29 September 2022 it confirmed that its contractor could carry out the work. On 14 October 2022 the landlord approved and raised a new repair, noting that a new shower unit was not installed during the previous repair. The repair was completed on 17 November 2022.
In its follow-up stage 1 response on 18 November 2022, the landlord advised:
1. It had arranged for its contractor to attend the same day in relation to the shower unit repair (this appointment actually took place the previous day).
2. It had asked the relevant team to raise a repair for the wet room shower door handle. The resident would be contacted directly with an appointment.
3. The length of time it had taken to complete works and the communication the resident received were below the standard it expected. It had made its maintenance team aware that in situations where work is delayed, it needed to improve its communication to prevent similar complaints in future.
4. It offered a goodwill gesture of £250, which included any future impact of delayed repairs to the shower door up to 15 December 2022. This comprised:
  1. £220 for time, trouble and inconvenience;
  2. £25 for poor communication.
On 30 December 2022 the landlord paid its goodwill gesture of £245 (incorrectly stated in its stage 1 response to be £250) to the resident.
On 5 January 2023 informed this Service that her shower door handles had not yet been repaired. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord raised a repair on 13 January 2023. This stated that it was “waiting on a non-standard part”. The repair was subsequently completed on 3 February 2023, and the landlord’s wellbeing team confirmed this with the resident on 6 February 2023.

The landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 8 February 2023, stated that:
1. It was disappointed to see that a repair to the resident’s shower door handle, which she reported on 15 May 2022, was never completed.
2. It again provided a summary of events. While a new order to repair the shower doors was issued on 16 August 2022, and it had chased the work on numerous occasions, an appointment had not yet been arranged.
3. Its wellbeing/escalations team had ownership of the repair and would continue to chase until an appointment was confirmed.
4. Due to unclear records, it was unable to confirm the date of initial attendance in relation to the shower cutting out. These works were completed on 17 November 2022.
5. As above, it would offer redress once the works had been completed.
In an email to this Service on 10 February 2023, the resident confirmed that the repair to her shower door handles had been completed earlier that month.
On 6 February 2024 the resident again reported that her shower was cutting out. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day out-of-hours. However, the repair was not completed at this appointment and on 26 February 2024 the resident called the landlord to say that she had been without bathing facilities for 2 weeks. The landlord’s wellbeing team again assisted with chasing the repair, and it was completed on 6 March 2024. As there was found to be a fault with the shower and it was outside its warranty period, the landlord raised an order for a replacement shower on 13 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Subsidence

Policy and procedure

The tenancy agreement sets out the repair responsibilities of the landlord and tenant. The landlord is responsible for maintaining and keeping in proper working order the structure and outside of the property, including the roof, outside walls, outside doors, window frames, and drains. The tenant is responsible for reporting to the landlord any disrepair or defect for which it is responsible.
The landlord will attend and make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. It defines emergency repairs as those “necessary to remove a serious threat to the health and safety of the service user … or the structure and fabric of their home”. Emergency repairs include damage to ground floor windows and insecure external doors.
The landlord aims to complete appointed (non-emergency) repairs within 28 days. Its repairs and maintenance policy states that it will regularly update customers on the progress of their repair through proactive communication. It will also ensure its repairs service is flexible to meet the needs of vulnerable service users.
The landlord does not have a specific policy or procedure in relation to subsidence. Its insurance policy states its obligation to provide insurance cover for damage to buildings on an ‘all risks’ basis. Where a claim falls below the policy excess (£25,000 for subsidence claims), it will not be handled by insurers. The landlord is required to report any incident that could give rise to an insurance claim, and staff must notify its insurance team of insurable events and material facts.
The landlord will consider offering compensation in certain circumstances. These include: for time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its action or inaction; delayed or poor responses to complaints; lack of, or unreasonable delay to, the provision of services; and additional costs incurred due to its action. It may make payments of up to £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience, and up to £150 for poor complaint handling. It may also make a financial or non-financial gesture of goodwill.

Overview

It is important to acknowledge at the outset that this was (and remains) a complex case, necessitating involvement by multiple specialist contractors, investigation, periods of monitoring, and diagnosis based on a number of factors and possible causes. The Ombudsman understands that such cases may be challenging for landlords to resolve, and that repairs may exceed the usual timeframes. However, in such circumstances effective coordination and oversight and good communication with residents are key.
The landlord has a responsibility to ensure that its properties are free from hazards and safe for its residents to inhabit. Under the Decent Homes Standard (2006), social landlords are expected to provide housing which meets the current minimum standard, is in a reasonable state of repair, and provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. The minimum standard for housing safety is set out by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), under which possible hazards include structural collapse, excess cold, risk of entry by intruders, and falls on level surfaces. Category 1 hazards require urgent repair.
The landlord would therefore be expected to assess the level of risk associated with repair issues reported to it, having regard to the resident’s specific circumstances and vulnerabilities. There is no documentary evidence of any assessment of risk or hazards taking place, which is concerning. In addition, while some emergency repairs were attended within the policy timeframe of 24 hours, others were left incomplete for periods of months or even years. Some specific areas of concern are discussed in more detail below.

Delays

The landlord’s handling of the subsidence repairs was characterised by frequent, excessive, and often unexplained delays. In particular:
1. It referred the matter to its insurers on 4 February 2019, but apparently did not take any further action until 26 July 2019 when it requested a structural survey. There is no evidence that it communicated with the resident or took steps to manage her expectations during this 5-month period. This was unsatisfactory.
2. It received a report from its contractor on 2 or 5 August 2019, but did not take further action until 21 October 2019. By this time the resident had queried the lack of action or update on 2 occasions. It appears the initial lack of action was due to the report stating an incorrect address, but there is no evidence that the landlord explained this to the resident, apologised for its error, or gave feedback to relevant staff/contractors to ensure the error was not repeated. When the resident requested an update on 13 September 2019, the landlord showed a lack of urgency, documenting that the necessary works would be sent to a different contractor “in due course”. This indicated insufficient regard for the resident and the impact on her.
3. It appears that the landlord’s insurer took almost 10 months (from 4 February 2019 to 29 November 2019) to confirm acceptance of the landlord’s claim. While this delay may have been outside the landlord’s control, it would have been appropriate for it to provide regular updates to the resident and consider allocating her a designated point of contact. It could also have explored interim measures.
4. After the insurer accepted the claim, monitoring did not begin until 3 months later (in February 2020).
5. On 19 March 2021 the landlord received a report which recommended a CCTV survey of the drain and pollarding of the nearby trees. However, a CCTV survey was not carried out until 14 November 2023, 32 months later. There is also no evidence that pollarding of the trees was progressed. If the landlord received new information to indicate these measures were less urgent or not necessary, or if it had reason to depart from the specialist recommendations it received, it did not document this.
6. A back door repair reported by the resident on 17 April 2021 was not completed until 20 July 2021. This 3-month delay exceeded the 28-day timeframe for non-emergency repairs set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord should also have considered treating the back door repairs as emergency repairs due to the impact on security of the property. The resident expressed her concerns about burglary as she lived next to a field, but the landlord did not address this by exploring additional security or target hardening measures.
7. The resident’s uneven front path and raised drain was identified as a hazard during an inspection in January 2022. Associated works were completed in January 2023 and November 2023, but this Service understands that the repairs have not yet been fully completed. This means that the resident – who has mobility issues – has been at increased risk for 2 and a half years. She has suffered at least 2 trips during this time, including 1 serious fall. There is no evidence that the landlord took steps to mitigate the risk of this when it was first alerted, or once it became aware of likely delays.
8. Repairs to the resident’s kitchen windows were also highlighted as a priority in January 2022. However, the landlord again demonstrated a lack of urgency in internal correspondence on 31 January 2022, responding to a query about timescales with “we will but not yet sure when”. In fact, it did not seek a quote for replacement of the windows until 2 February 2024, more than 2 years later. The quote took over 2 months to be obtained (on 15 April 2024), even though it was supplied by the landlord’s in-house repairs service. The repairs were then not progressed until at least 26 June 2024, by which point the lead time had increased. This avoidable delay meant that the resident, whose health condition was exacerbated by the cold, lived in a draughty property for 2 and a half years and was required to pay increased costs to heat the property. This was unacceptable.
9. The landlord requested a quote for geopolymer injection treatment on 31 January 2022, but did not receive this until a year later (on 17 January 2023). No record has been provided to show that the landlord chased its specialist contractor regarding the quote or mentioned the urgency of the situation. Internal communications repeatedly referred to the specialist being “overwhelmed with work”, but there is no direct evidence that the specialist advised the landlord of this (only an internal note). Furthermore, the explanation of the specialist being “overwhelmed” was first given in August 2022, but continued to be used to justify delays in February 2023, with no evidence of further updates being sought during the intervening months. The landlord also noted that, according to its engineer, “there currently isn’t an alternative specialist of the same standard available”, but there is no indication that it investigated this or explored other treatment options.
10. There were often periods of weeks or even months when the landlord did not appear to update the resident. This would have contributed to her feelings of uncertainty and being ignored. For instance, there is no evidence that any update was provided between January and May 2022. The landlord also told the resident that its surveyor would contact her in response to her email of 30 November 2022, but this did not appear to happen.
11. A structural inspection was recommended on 21 January 2023, but no inspection was then carried out for several months. Investigation works were quoted for on 18 April 2023 but not completed until 2 months later, on 14 June 2023. This delay was unsatisfactory, particularly in view of the history of the case and the resident’s vulnerability.
12. The landlord received a quote for the subsidence works on 1 July 2023. While the works were approved, they have not yet been completed over a year later. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord wished to have the quote reviewed by its structural contractor; however, this was completed in November 2023 (4 months after the quote was obtained) and it appears that the landlord acted contrary to the structural contractor’s recommendation. Its further delay of at least 8 months in progressing the substantive repairs was unacceptable, and caused prolonged detriment to the resident.

Insurance claim

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to assess the landlord’s dealings with its insurer or the insurer’s actions. However, there is evidence of numerous instances where the landlord did not provide information requested by its insurance team, or excessively delayed in doing so. This is likely to have contributed to the delays experienced by the resident. It was unsatisfactory for the landlord’s disorganisation and/or poor internal communication to prolong the timeframe of the repairs, and, as a result, the negative impact on the resident.

Knowledge and information management

Within the documentation inspected, there are repeated references to records being absent or unclear. For example, the landlord acknowledged that it “hold[s] very limited information” relating to the period when its former surveyor was handling the subsidence repairs at the property. More than once, repairs could not be located on the landlord’s system and had to be re-raised. Its stage 2 responder also found evidence of unclear record keeping, such as “it is unclear what the outcome of [its inspection on 29 January 2019] was”. There is no indication that the landlord took sufficient steps to investigate the reasons for its poor record keeping or to give assurance that it had made improvements.
As referred to above, correspondence between the landlord’s repairs service and its insurance team was at times adversarial, repetitive, and confusing. Teams appeared to operate in silos and the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that any team or officer took ownership of the situation or made efforts to drive it forward to seek a resolution (until very recently in June 2024). Misaligned expectations and a disagreement regarding the nature and funding of the repairs meant that decisions were not reached and the repairs were allowed to remain outstanding for periods of months.

Back door repair

As a result of movement of the property, the resident was required to reach through a broken window to close her back door from the inside when exiting her property. The door itself was insecure and held closed with 2 clips, one of which was difficult for the resident to reach. This situation would be intolerable for any resident, but caused disproportionate disadvantage to the resident in this case, who had a physical disability affecting her mobility.
The landlord was aware of this situation since at least May 2022. The resident reported the issue on 12 May 2022, but the landlord did not acknowledge the report until nearly a month later on 7 June 2022. The length of this delay was unreasonable. When the landlord did respond, it missed an opportunity to reassure the resident, understand the impact on her, and implement any temporary solutions; instead, it told her its contractor would be in touch. This apparently did not happen, as the resident felt the need to chase the repair on 30 June 2022. The landlord’s inability to locate an existing job is indicative of a record keeping issue.
When the landlord’s contractor attended in July 2022, it appears the operative was not fully briefed regarding the nature of the repair and subsidence in the property. This meant they were unable to complete the repair on the day. The resident later expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord sent a locksmith rather than someone qualified to fix the specific issue affecting her door, describing this as “disrespectful”. While the landlord was required to share information in line with its data protection obligations, more effective communication with its contractor may have prevented this unproductive appointment. Furthermore, as the contractor confirmed that the door was insecure, the landlord should either have made prompt arrangements to secure the property (through whatever means necessary), or to provide the resident with suitable alternative accommodation. This is discussed in more detail below.

Front path and drain

There appears to have been some debate by the landlord as to whether the issue affecting the resident’s front path and drain was linked to subsidence. Correspondence between the landlord and its contractor on 3 February 2023 stated “this footpath are likely to be related with the subsiding” [sic], whereas other internal correspondence on 24 October 2023 stated “there are 2 issues here and you’re getting them mixed up”. For the purposes of this investigation, there is no requirement for the link to be proven. The matter was raised by the resident in her complaint and addressed by the landlord in its responses, and as such, it may be investigated by this Service.
As noted by the resident in her complaint, the landlord documented the risk presented by the raised drain in January 2022. A report provided on 29 January 2022 noted that the uneven path and drain “presents a trip hazard to the disabled occupant who has restricted mobility”. In addition to the resident’s CES, her drop foot caused her difficulty in lifting the front part of her foot. Despite this knowledge, the landlord took no prompt or effective action to address the situation. The resident told it in August 2022 that “I have tripped over on [the drain] and slid on it” and “I haven’t had a really bad fall on it yet, but it’s only a matter of time”. She later suffered a fall in January 2023, a year after the issue was first documented by the landlord. The resident told the landlord that the fall caused her to “hit the floor” and hurt her back and stomach. She said she was still in pain from the fall in April 2023, but the landlord apparently did not take appropriate action until after the resident submitted a personal injury insurance claim.
The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord’s action or inaction caused or worsened a health condition or injury, as this is a matter for the courts. However, this Service can assess the landlord’s response to reports and concerns raised by the resident. The documentary evidence supplied indicates that the landlord’s focus was on avoidance of liability and careful wording of complaint responses, rather than assuring itself the resident was safe and adequately supported.
When the landlord’s insurance team contacted its housing team following the resident’s second report of a fall in October 2023, which she said caused her to jar her back, the response was dismissive and deflected responsibility onto the resident: “As far as I know the job was completed in January” and “If [the resident] feels it wasn’t done properly, she should have reported it to us as per the terms of her tenancy agreement”. This was inappropriate, and suggested a lack of proactivity and oversight by the landlord. Following further dialogue, it was established that the relevant repair had not been completed. The housing team also initially resisted the insurance team’s request for completion of an accident report in relation to the fall, meaning that the report was not completed until 13 November 2023 (3 weeks after this was first requested on 22 October 2023). It is concerning that such a form was not routinely completed, and that once the form was completed, this potential procedural issue was not followed up.
As with the back door repair, the resident informed this Service that a contractor which attended to repair the raised drain was “told it was a 5 minute job”, whereas in fact it was “massive” and they were unable to complete any work at all. This is a further example of poor record keeping and/or poor communication resulting in unproductive and repeated appointments.

Decant

Despite the landlord’s knowledge of the resident’s disability, the conditions in her property, and her report of a serious fall on 4 January 2023, there is no reference to consideration of a decant until 24 October 2023. Even then, the possibility of a decant was not thoroughly explored or discussed internally. The resident said she had been told by a contractor that her property was unsafe for her to be living in on 16 October 2019, but there is no evidence that the landlord assessed the safety of the property or reassured the resident at this time. This was inappropriate and would have compounded the resident’s understandable distress.
In its update to this Service on 27 June 2024, the landlord advised that its “senior surveyor has confirmed that a decant will not be required”. However, it is again unclear how this was determined or whether the decision was communicated to the resident. If the landlord had reason to believe that the property was safe, it should have explained its decision making and put measures in place to ensure the resident suffered no additional detriment as a result of remaining there. For example, offering to cover any increased utility costs at an early stage, and carrying out any interim works to ensure the resident did not experience cold conditions, would have reduced her anxiety about her finances and improved her comfort within the property.

Compensation

At both stages 1 and 2, the landlord told the resident it would offer redress once it had an estimated timeframe for the subsidence repairs. However, in view of the lengthy and complex nature of the repairs, the Ombudsman considers this approach to be unreasonable. It also did not address the immediate and continued hardship caused to the resident as a result of increased heating costs. Offering an interim payment, and explaining its method of calculating future payments, would have demonstrated openness and an appreciation of the resident’s needs.
An order for compensation has therefore been made as part of the Ombudsman’s determination. In the circumstances, a rent-based calculation has been considered appropriate. The compensation that has been awarded amounts to approximately 25% of the resident’s rent between January 2019 and July 2024. This is not a rebate of rent, but reflects the distress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity she suffered as a result of the delayed repairs and hazardous conditions in her home. It is not intended to be an exact calculation. An additional award has been made in recognition of increased costs she incurred.

Summary

An overall finding of severe maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the subsidence repairs. This is due to its failure to establish and document that the property was safe for habitation; its repeated and often excessive delays in carrying out works; its poor communication, both internally and with the resident; its inadequate record keeping; its omission to sufficiently consider a decant; its disregard for health and safety concerns raised by the resident and its contractors; its deferred and unspecific offer of future redress; and its lack of sympathy, understanding and flexibility in accommodating the resident’s vulnerability.

Shower repairs

Policy and procedure

The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and keeping in proper working order installations for the supply of water and sanitation, including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that, in addition to the awards referred to above, it will pay £10 for missed appointments.

Shower door handle and clip repairs

The resident reported a repair to her shower door handles on 15 May 2022. The landlord raised this on 16 May 2022 and issued it to its contractor on 17 May 2022, which was appropriate. However, it is then unclear why the repair was not progressed. The resident advised that she received a call from a contractor 3 months later (in August 2022), saying they would be attending that day, but they did not turn up. This would have been frustrating for the resident. An order has been made for the landlord to pay its usual rate of £10 for a missed appointment, as it apparently did not do so at the time or as part of its complaint response. Applying the payment promptly and proactively in line with its compensation guidance – and following up with its contractor about their non-attendance, if applicable – would have helped the resident to feel that the landlord was taking her concerns seriously.
The resident chased the repair with the landlord on 15 September 2022, and informed this Service that it remained outstanding on 5 January 2023. In response the landlord raised a new repair, which raises further concerns regarding record keeping and monitoring of overdue works. It subsequently documented that it was waiting for delivery of a “non-standard part”. The repair was completed on 3 February 2023, nearly 9 months after it was reported by the resident. This timeframe significantly exceeded the landlord’s target timeframe of 28 days. It also did not fulfil its policy commitments of regularly updating customers on the progress of their repair, and ensuring its repair service meets the needs of vulnerable service users. This was unacceptable.
It is of further concern that the landlord’s stage 2 response – issued the week after the shower door handle repair was completed – stated that the repair was “never completed” and did not refer to recent developments. This once more suggested poor record keeping and/or inadequate communication between teams. The stage 2 response said that the landlord would offer redress once works were completed, but it is unclear whether this included outstanding shower repairs (or those it believed to be outstanding).
Separately, the resident told the landlord in her August 2022 complaint that the clips on her shower doors were broken “months ago”. She said she had had a fall around 2 months earlier, resulting in flooding to her bathroom and staining to her living room ceiling. It is unclear whether the landlord was made aware of this at the time it happened. Nevertheless, it did not mention this incident in its stage 1 response, which referred only to the works completed on 15 August 2022. This conveyed a lack of understanding and thorough investigation of the complaint, as well as a lack of appropriate sympathy or compassion. The landlord also omitted to confirm whether repairs to the wet room floor and/or living room ceiling remained outstanding.

Reports of the shower not working or working intermittently

The resident reported that her shower was not working on 20 July 2022. The landlord acted reasonably by referring the repair to its wellbeing team, which made some appropriate efforts to expedite the work and update the resident. The wellbeing team demonstrated a good knowledge of the resident’s disability and the impact of lack of bathing facilities.
Following initial attendance, the Ombudsman acknowledges that follow-on works were needed which required authorisation. The landlord again acted appropriately in flagging and pursuing this. However, while an internal note dated 4 August 2022 stated “I do not feel we can leave tenant much longer with no bathing”, there is no evidence that the landlord checked the resident was able to access alternative bathing facilities, or offered any practical support in arranging this.
The repair was completed on 15 August 2022. This was 26 days after it was reported, and so fell within the landlord’s 28-day timescale. Though it would have been preferable for it to have been completed sooner, due to the resident’s vulnerability, overall the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s handling of this repair to have been adequate.
The resident then reported that her shower was cutting out on 26 August 2022. This repair was delayed due to a plumber attending, but an electrician being required. The landlord noted internally that its contractor should have fed this back themselves rather than asking the resident to inform it. However, it did not acknowledge this to the resident or apologise. The overall timescale for this repair was nearly 3 months (with completion on 17 November 2022), which was unsatisfactory. It is of additional concern that, 2 months before the repair was carried out, the resident told the landlord she was having to get out of the shower and operate switches in the fuse box while dripping with water, which she saw as a “massive risk”. There is no evidence that the landlord replied to the resident or took any action in response to this, such as providing electrical safety advice, accelerating the repair, or exploring alternative solutions.
While the stage 1 response noted the resident’s comments and accepted it had been “a difficult time” for her in respect of the shower repairs, it did not accept any responsibility for this difficulty or give assurance of action it had taken (such as giving feedback to its wellbeing team regarding their input). This is again concerning, as the resident had said the landlord made her feel “like I am unimportant, I don’t matter, they don’t care, why bother, what’s the point, I’m not worthy”. She also felt the landlord offered a service it could not commit to and was “messing with vulnerable people’s heads”. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to explore the reason for such feedback in order to review and improve its service offer. For instance, on one occasion the wellbeing team was apparently unable to assist with a new issue, which caused frustration to the resident and may explain her feeling of being “ignored by a team who are meant to help people like me”. The landlord could have explored whether she needed more or different support, and treated this as a useful learning opportunity regarding appropriate use of discretion by its team.
The resident again reported her shower cutting out on 6 February 2024. This postdated her complaint, and therefore falls outside the focal period of this investigation. However, in view of themes identified within the investigation, it is relevant to note that the landlord had identified a new shower was required on 5 August 2022. On 16 August 2022 it confirmed that the shower unit was to be replaced. Despite this, on 14 October 2022 the resident noted that a new unit had not been installed. It was not until 13 March 2024 – following an appointment on 6 February 2024, a follow-up by the resident on 26 February 2024, and a further appointment on 6 March 2024 – that a replacement shower was ordered. It is unclear from the information provided if and when the replacement shower was installed. Improved record keeping, making it clear which parts of the shower were replaced and when, may have prevented recurrence of some of the issues. Instead, the shower was previously noted to have been replaced when it had not been fully replaced. Carrying out the replacement more swiftly when it identified a need for a new shower may also have enabled the landlord to act while the shower was within the manufacturer’s warranty (although this cannot be confirmed).

Summary

A finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s shower repairs, due to the instances discussed above of delayed repairs, a missed appointment, poor record keeping, and inadequate communication and support. The £245 offered by the landlord is considered insufficient to put this right – particularly as it did not reflect all of the shower issues to date – and so increased compensation has been ordered in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. This exceeds the landlord’s maximum award of £400 for a single service failure because there were multiple failures.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then provide a written response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2.
Prior to the resident’s complaint submitted on 16 August 2022, an internal email by the landlord on 9 August 2022 referred to a “complaint received from tenant” (ie the resident). It asked the recipient to “please be aware of the complaint open and the possible progression to stage 2 if a response cannot be offered within a reasonable timeframe”. The landlord’s evidence submission to this Service clarified that this email related to the resident’s complaint which is the focus of this investigation. It is therefore unclear whether the complaint was originally made on 9 August 2022 and resubmitted, or whether this referred in error to a different case. As this cannot be known for certain, it has been assumed for the purposes of this investigation that the resident’s complaint was made on 16 August 2022, as there is a clear record of this. However, this discrepancy again calls the landlord’s record keeping into question.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 23 August 2022, which was in line with its policy timeframe of 5 working days. It then responded 1 working day after it said it would. Its response time was 16 working days from the date of its acknowledgement. While this exceeded both its target timeframe of 10 working days and its anticipated timeframe of 15 working days, the response time was not excessive. However, given that there was a slight delay, it would have been good practice for the landlord to inform the resident of this in advance. This is a further example of where effective communication could have improved her experience.
The landlord’s stage 1 response dated 15 September 2022 provided a summary of events, but this appeared selective and did not acknowledge significant gaps in activity (for example, between 26 July 2019 and 2022). Rather than acknowledging delays and the impact of these on the resident, and explaining the landlord’s position, the response gave the impression that the subsidence repairs were progressing as expected. The landlord did not address all aspects of the complaint, as discussed above, and did not confirm whether or not the complaint was upheld. This was unsatisfactory.
The landlord then departed from its complaints policy by issuing a second stage 1 response. This contained a number of errors. For instance, it stated that the shower repair had been arranged to take place that day, whereas in fact it had taken place the day before. The financial redress offered as part of the response was incorrectly calculated, with the component payments adding up to £245 rather than £250. It was also presented as a goodwill gesture rather than compensation, which was disingenuous in view of the failure identified. The resident later accepted the payment and received £245, but subsequent correspondence continued to refer to an award of £250. There is no indication that this error was acknowledged, that the landlord apologised, or that records were amended. This once again perpetuated ineffective record keeping.
While it is appreciated that the original stage 1 response stated a further update would be provided within 10 working days, the follow-up response was provided 46 working days later (on 18 November 2022). This meant that communications sent by the resident on 15 September 2022, 11 October 2022 and 25 October 2022 were not identified as potential escalation requests. The resident expressed her continued dissatisfaction in each of these, and on 25 October 2022 she submitted a further complaint form. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to any of these 3 contacts (although it discussed 2 of them internally), which was unsatisfactory.
In addition, the landlord missed an opportunity to discuss escalation with the resident following her email of 30 November 2022, in which she said “the way I have been treated has been disgusting”. On 4 December 2022 it documented “no response received from tenant so I have closed the complaint”; this was inaccurate, as several contacts had been received as discussed above. It apparently had not noted the resident’s email of 30 November 2022 when it closed the complaint, as this was not responded to until 15 December 2022. On this date the landlord apologised to the resident for the way she had been treated and shared information with its surveyor, but not its complaints team. This is further evidence of a disjointed approach by teams.
The resident’s complaint was escalated only following intervention by this Service. The landlord confirmed escalation within 2 days of receiving contact from the Ombudsman, which was reasonable. It then responded on its target date of 8 February 2023. This was appropriate.
The stage 2 response was detailed, appropriately apologetic, and provided a helpful and updated summary of events. However, where straightforward actions remained outstanding, the landlord could have completed these as part of its investigation and used the response to provide assurance that it had done so. For instance, it said it had asked its customer service centre to confirm if an appointment was attended, and if so, what the outcome was; it would have been preferable for the landlord to proactively obtain this update and include it in the stage 2 response, rather than leaving the matter unresolved. Similarly, it said “I hope I am able to reassure you that I will raise the issues I have found with the appropriate senior managers.” It would have been more impactive, and indicative of a solution-focused approach, for it to confirm that it had already raised the issues with the relevant managers.
A finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it did not adhere to its stated complaint stages, and missed opportunities to communicate with the resident regarding her complaint. It did not inform her that its stage 1 response would be a day late; issued its follow-up stage 1 response 36 days after it said it would; failed to identify or respond to several possible escalation requests; and obstructed the resident’s access to this Service by advising that it had not yet issued its final response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of subsidence in the property;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the shower;
3. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its delays, poor communication, and insufficient regard for her disability in handling her repairs and complaint. The apology should be made in writing by the landlord’s chief executive officer, should express genuine regret, and should acknowledge the impact of the situation on the resident.
2. Pay the resident £13,410, comprising:
  1. £11,400 for its delays in addressing subsidence to the property, poor communication, poor record keeping, lack of risk assessment, failure to offer a decant or otherwise provide suitable living conditions, and lack of sufficient or timely redress (calculated as approximately 25% of her rent over the relevant period);
  2. £1,000 in contribution towards her increased utility costs and the time and trouble she expended in chasing the repairs;
  3. £600 for its delayed shower repairs and associated failures;
  4. £10 for its missed appointment in relation to the shower door handle repair in August 2022;
  5. £400 for its complaint handling failures.

If the landlord has already paid the resident the £245 it offered at stage 1, this should be deducted from the total above, meaning that the difference of £13,165 is now due.

Produce a clear, detailed and timebound schedule of works in relation to the subsidence repairs, based on the approved quotation. A copy of the schedule of works should be shared with the resident and this Service. The schedule should clearly state an anticipated start and completion date.
Allocate the resident a designated point of contact. This officer should contact the resident within the 4 weeks to introduce themselves and provide their direct contact details. They should then update the resident at an agreed frequency (eg weekly or fortnightly), using her preferred method, until the repairs are complete. In particular, the point of contact should inform the resident if there is any change to the anticipated completion date.
Ask the local authority’s environmental health service to carry out an inspection and assessment of hazards in the property (including the front garden and path), and advise whether the service considers the property to be safe for habitation. A copy of the Ombudsman’s determination should be attached to the request. A copy of the resulting report and/or any advice should be provided to the resident and this Service.
Confirm that all issues with the resident’s shower have now been resolved. If they have not been resolved, it should carry out any outstanding repairs within its stated timescales. Once the shower issues have been resolved, it should redecorate and make good the resident’s living room ceiling (where staining occurred) if it has not already done so. It should confirm its intentions regarding this order within the 4 weeks.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 8 weeks of the date of this report (and as soon as practicable):
1. Carry out its own risk assessment in relation to the resident’s continued habitation of the property, taking account of the local authority’s findings, any repairs which cannot be carried out until the subsidence repairs have been completed, the resident’s vulnerability, and her ability to heat the property. The risk assessment should be completed by a suitably qualified surveyor who has not previously been involved in the handling of the resident’s case. A copy of the risk assessment should be provided to this Service.
2. Based on the outcome of the risk assessment, consider whether a decant is appropriate. It should also discuss the possibility of a decant with the resident and take her preferences into consideration. The landlord should then inform the resident and this Service of its decision. If a decant is progressed (either to a suitable alternative property or to hotel accommodation), this should take account of the resident’s health conditions and needs, and should not be unduly delayed. If a decant is not progressed, the landlord should make arrangements to cover any increased utility costs while the resident remains living in the property and the works have not been completed (from the date of this report). It should also satisfy itself that the property is fully secure while the resident is living there.
In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to do the following within 12 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Carry out a senior management review of the resident’s case. This should consider the landlord’s internal and external communication, record keeping, regard for the resident’s vulnerability, and missed opportunities for action. It should also consider the landlord’s handling of repair cases involving insurance claims. A copy of the resulting report should be provided to this Service.
2. Carry out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (if it has not already done so). It is able to provide evidence of any previous self-assessment if it has already completed this.
3. Review its offer of training for staff involved in complaint handling and consider whether refresher training is required in relation to this Service’s statutory complaint handling code. In particular, it should ensure staff are aware of the requirement for a 2-stage complaints process and the associated timescales. It should inform this Service of the outcome of its review and any intended actions arising from this.