Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202314623)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314623

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

28 February 2025

Amended 3 March 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of:
  1. Drainage issues.
  2. Cracks in her property walls.
  3. Staff misconduct
2. The resident’s concerns about:
  1. The standard of replacement of communal flooring.
  2. Charges for remedial work to the communal flooring.
  3. The costs of the management of the block of flats.

Jurisdiction

When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:
1. Under paragraph 42.d, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
2. Under paragraph 42.j, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 regulates the rights and responsibilities of how the landlord manages service charges. This complaint would require a forensic analysis of the accounts and a determination of the law which is not within the remit of the Ombudsman to carry out and, in the view of the Ombudsman, is best suited to the jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property) (referred to in this report as the “Property Tribunal”).
After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the following complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s concerns about:
  1. Charges for remedial work to the communal flooring
  2. The costs of the management of the block of flats.

Background

The resident was a leaseholder of a flat in a block of around 24 flats, situated in a wider estate of around 60 to 70 flats. The property was managed by a managing agent employed by the freeholder of the block, who were other leaseholders.
On 10 October 2022, the landlord sent the resident a complaint response about the cracks in her property. The landlord did not provide us with the response.
On 17 or 22 November 2022 the resident made a complaint about drains and leaking pipes.
On 6 December 2022 the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. The complaint was about ongoing drainage issues. The resident wanted the landlord to investigate and resolve the communal drainage issues.
2. The contractor’s manager reviewed the CCTV survey to the communal stack carried out by its drainage contractor in February 2022. The stack was clear and free flowing with no blockages found.
3. It had suggested that, as she was experiencing slow draining and blockages, her own plumber should check for any blockages in the bathroom or kitchen.
4. If the plumber found that there were any blockages within the communal drainage system that the landlord may be responsible for, it suggested she sought a detailed plumber report and it would review the information and consider reimbursement of the costs.
On 13 January 2023 the resident requested the landlord escalate the complaint to Stage 2.
On 20 January 2023 the landlord wrote as follows:
1. It would take steps to prevent pipes becoming frequently blocked in response to the rodent issue and report supplied in February 2022.
2. She had, in accordance with the landlord’s advice, installed an air valve in her kitchen sink. This had not stopped the frequent reclogging. She requested there be cyclical pipe maintenance. Other properties in the block were also experiencing issues.
On 25 January 2023 the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. She did not receive a follow-up following the surveyor inspection of 17 November 2022. Her complaint was also about the lack of communication generally.
2. The landlord had not responded to her request for information about the safety of the building.
3. She had not received any advice about her kitchen window which did not open due to subsidence.
4. The landlord had not responded to her question whether the drains issue and subsidence were linked.
On 8 February 2023 the resident chased a response. She also reported a fresh crack in the kitchen ceiling. She considered the lack of updates showed a lack of appreciation on the seriousness, urgency and potential “unsafe and destructive consequences of delaying progressing this issue”. The landlord replied it would “escalate” her emails to the repairs team.
On 17 February 2023 the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint of 17 November 2022 as follows:
1. It offered to arrange for its surveyor to attend.
2. On the basis of “the current information”, it did not uphold the complaint.
3. Its intention was to “use (its) best endeavours to identify any factors that impacted on the waste pipes to her property.
On 30 May 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to “Stage 3” as the landlord had not undertaken a long-term solution. The landlord’s contractors had attended another property and confirmed the blockage was due to a soil stack issue.
There was a referral to a stage response in an email 2 June 2023 regarding “risk of flooding” but we do not have the response itself.
On 6 June 2023 the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. She required an explanation as to why it has taken the landlord 17 months since the plumber’s report of February 2022 to take action. Chasing updates had caused her 17 months of distress.
2. She was told an emergency drain unblock was booked but it did not happen, leaving a risk of flooding and blocking.
On 21 July 2023 the landlord wrote with its Stage One response to the resident’s “3rd” complaint as follows. It referred to her complaint of 14 July 2023. While we do not have the complaint itself, the complaint was set out as follows:
1. Her allegations that a member of staff “bullied and harassed” her in a voicemail message.
2. Lack of updates about the subsidence
3. Promises that the drains would be cleared following a number of inspections.
4. The condition of the communal flooring following it being replaced. She wanted it to be redone and confirmation about the manufacturers’ guarantee.
It was working internally to ensure that moving forward there were clearer lines of communication.
1. The “serious allegation” about the staff member was being dealt with his line manager. It had not received a “copy” of the voicemail it had requested. It suggested it arrange for a manager to contact her so that the voicemail message could be played over the telephone, Teams or Zoom. This was being treated as a serious allegation and therefore a fully and transparent investigation would take place, in which the recording could be played. It invited her to provide a recording so as to investigate the matter further.
2. Its contracts manager inspected the property on 30 June 2023. It had explained by email to all residents that subsidence claims were a lengthy process. A contractor had been appointed. Monitoring was put in place on 17 July 2023. There would be an inspection every 8 weeks, over a 56-week period. At each 8-week inspection, it would update the customers affected. This inspection will also take into account other possible causes, which may be impacting on the building e.g. the trees in the immediate area, this could also mean discussions with other landowners in the immediate area.
3. Following its inspection of the drainage issue on 30 June 2023 with the contractor, it had apologised that the CCTV survey was not able to take place. It was “confident” that the issue causing the blockage was located where the waste pipe from individual properties connected onto the main stack pipe. Its contractors had already started to make appointments, to visit individual properties to ensure that their waste pipes were clear. The resident did not want the contractor to contact her for access. The landlord still wanted to carry out work to ensure her waste pipes were clear and asked for a convenient access date and time. Once all the individual properties were completed, it would arrange a CCTV survey to ensure it was resolved.
4. On 30 June 2023 a detailed inspection took place of the flooring. It would not be renewing the new floor already laid. It had raised additional works to be completed by 19 August 2023 to provide a permanent edging to replace the clear mastic. This permanent edging would cover where the flooring meets the walls and steps. This work would ensure that the current flooring was longer lasting by protecting the edges as well as being more aesthetically appealing. The new door entrance matting was to be installed by 19 August 2023.
According to an undated document, which from the context was on or around 21 July 2023, the resident requested to escalate the complaint as follows:
1. The “bullying and harassment” by a member of staff consisted of him calling and emailing her accusing her of not allowing access when no appointment had been arranged. He had not informed himself. The landlord had not read her initial complaint properly.
2. She had not received updates regarding subsidence.
3. The landlord had not set out how it would prevent rodents which had “caused flooding”.
4. She had provided access on 16 June 2023 and no further was needed until the investigation.
5. Her flat was cold and had condensation.
On 1 September 2023 the landlord wrote with its stage two response. It apologised for the delay.
1. It apologised for delay in getting the repairs completed, the miscommunications that had caused confusion and further delay, and for the chasing she had had to do to receive updates on progress.
2. It apologised for the staff member’s communication and she felt harassed and that the tone of the communication was accusatory. The staff member was no longer working for the landlord. As he had left, they were unable to investigate further. “I am sorry that you felt this way”. The resident had not provided the recording.
3. The agreed works did not take place as planned on the 17 July 2023. It apologised the information given in relation to this appointment was incorrect.
4. Its insurers have confirmed that the trial pits, taking of soil samples and the taking of the first monitoring readings has taken place. Monitoring readings were to be taken periodically.
5. It invited her to report any further significant change in the cracks. It would not be updating every 8 weeks, as for the majority of the monitoring, there would be nothing to update on. Once the cycle of readings was complete, the building consultant would share their findings. Its insurers would notify it during the monitoring period if there has been any significant changes, and it would then notify residents if any work was required. It was important that it followed the process advised by its insurers to ensure it did not invalidate any claims for remedial work.
6. A descale of the main drain was likely to be required. The works had been transferred to an alternative contractor. It would not recharge the costs, The contractors would carry out their own CCTV diagnostic survey.
7. The contractor attended on the 18 August 2023, however they determined that access from the roof would be required in order to complete the CCTV survey and ascertain the full scale of works. It aimed to complete the CCTV survey within the next 2 weeks, subject to the contractors’ availability. It would the act on any recommendations to provide a long-term solution to the problems.
8. It appreciated the repeated issues were upsetting. It did not run a cyclical drainage maintenance programme as this did not offer good value for money. Such costs would be passed onto leaseholders as part of service charges.
9. It apologised that the agreed remedial works to the flooring had not been completed. An alternative contractor was to undertake this edging work to the communal areas and stairwell the week commencing 18 September 2023, subject to the delivery of the relevant materials. A 1-year guarantee would be provided and the landlord would not recharge for the provision of the permanent edging. It was not going to recharge for the mat.
10. There is no contract or service level agreement between the landlord and the managing agent. It explained the landlord relationships.
11. Communication in relation to the management of the repairs had not been acceptable. It apologised. This had caused confusion and delay. It would update residents on progress.
12. It offered £100 for the inconvenience this had caused and £50 for the delay to the stage two response.
13. It had reviewed the criteria for ‘complex repair case’. They required a higher level of co-ordination, management and regular communication with its customers. It understood the importance of effective case management, to ensure that repair jobs were properly planned and co-ordinated, that customers are kept informed and that the work is verified as complete via a final inspection and sign off. A Customer Liaison Advisor had been appointed.
On 21 September 2023 the resident asked to escalate a complaint. We do not have details of or information about this complaint. This appears to refer to the Stage 2 response of 1 September 2023. The landlord did not have a Stage 3 to its complaints process.
On 24 April 2024 the landlord wrote with a Stage 1 complaint response and referred to reviewing compensation. We do not have the complaint itself. There followed a negotiation. The resident requested £2,184 for the time she spent on emails. On 29 April 2024, the landlord offered £114 for a drainage receipt and £600. The parties agreed on compensation of £900.
According to the landlord, its payment form stated the £900 was for:
1. Poor experience with the conduct of previous Complaints Manager
2. Insufficient subsidence monitoring
3. Continuous flooding of the drain backing up into the resident‘s property resulting in customer having to get her own plumber.
We understand from the landlord’s explanation to us of 27 February 2025 that the £900 was in relation to the plumbing invoice and her time and trouble over “recent years”.
On 11 December 2024 the resident made a further complaint about:
1. Disrepair on subsidence and failure to repair cracks in her home, causing further damage.
2. Failure to clear drains resulting in ongoing issues
3. Disrepair has resulted in a fallen tree in the grounds!
4. Poor communication and lack of knowledgeable personnel.
On 24 December 2024 the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response. It was about ongoing repair issues.
1. It enclosed a CCTV survey.
2. The loss adjustors advised that given the minimal movement recorded in the September 2024, the monitoring does take between 2-3 years.
3. It provided a point of contact to update her on the progress of the work and repairs and subsidence monitoring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation of the complaint about drainage in the resident’s property.

We have noted that the resident made a number of complaints about the drains. The landlord sent Stage 2 responses on 17 February 2023 and 1 September 2023. However, the issue of the drains was long-running and was not resolved. In the circumstances, our investigation will include the resident’s complaint of November 2022.
The resident reported that she had been reported issues about the drains in 2020. We note that jobs had been raised to the soil stack, CCTV surveys were carried out in the past and that the resident’s neighbours had been reporting issues since at least 2018. However, we will not investigate events more than 2 years prior to the resident’s complaint. That is because we will not investigate historical events. We expect residents to make complaints within 12 months of events complained about. Records may be missing and memories fade. It is also so that the landlord can respond in a timely manner to the event complained of. We will, however, look at the context of the complaint.

The drainage

On 6 June 2021, the resident reported that her bathroom sink water was flowing from her bath and that drainage water from her washing machine was flowing into her kitchen sink. It was reasonable that the landlord sent its contractors even though the landlord were not responsible for the pipes inside the property. Its contractors recommended that she have a valve fitted. According to its repair log, the landlord’s contractors addressed the blocked communal drains. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its expert contractors. It was also entitled to have a two-prong approach, namely for the resident to address repairs that were her responsibility under the lease, and for the landlord to address the repairs externally. If the internal drainage was affected by the condition of the communal drainage, we would expect the landlord to accept responsibility.
The resident made a number of further reports including blockages, a smell of sewerage, water not draining, the sink and bath water resurging into different places. The reports included those made on 10 January 2022, on 6 June 2022, 14 October 2022, 12 November 2022, 3 March 2023, 4 May 2023 , 3 July 2023, 21 August 2023 and 5 September 2023. On 8 February 2022, the resident reported a leak into the downstairs flat and that she was unable to use her shower.
The evidence showed that the landlord acted reasonably in arranging for contractors to attend the resident’s property on the basis this was an issue of the drains in the block as follows:
1. The landlord agreed to send contractors following the resident’s report of 10 January 2022. According to internal emails, the contractors attended on 4 February 2022 to unblock the bathroom sink.
2. Following the resident’s report of 8 February 2022, the landlord’s position was that she should call her own plumber. However, according to the repair logs, again the landlord’s contractors attended on 11 February 2022 as well.
3. Following the resident’s report of 6 June 2022, the landlord reasonably contacted its contractors again.
4. Following the resident’s report of 4 May 2023, the landlord raised a job to inspect the property, given there had been other reports of blocked drains by neighbours. According to its internal email of 25 May 2023, the drains were running clear. It arranged for a surveyor to attend on 5 June 2023 in other to clarify where the responsibility lay and a contractor to clear the drains.
The evidence, including the repair logs and correspondence, indicated that the landlord reasonably carried out investigations and works in the communal drainage as follows:
1. According to internal emails, the landlord raised a job to its contractors to clear the communal stack. According to the landlord’s repairs log, drains were unblocked on 3 November 2021
2. The repair log indicated that the landlord carried out CCTV surveys in 2018, 2020, on 15 January 2021 and 27 January 2022 although the landlord did not provide us with the outcome.
3. A clean was carried out on 27 April 2021.
4. It arranged to unblock the drains on 20 May 2021 and 3 November 2021, 20 January, 3, and 21 February 2022, 9 June 2022, 15 August 2022, although the records did not specify where.
5. On 13 April 2022, it raised a job as per a CCTV survey and recommendations to remove a toilet and carry out a descale, then re-survey, though it did not specify the location.
6. A descale took place on 10 January 2023 and 17 February 2023. On the latter date, a job was to consist of carrying out CCTV survey whilst descale was taking place to ensure the stack was running at full capacity and there were no defects in stack or underground drainage.
7. On 7 June 2023, the landlord considered the need for routine cyclical cleaning and was to review this after the stack cleaning and informed the resident. It was entitled to decide it was not value for money and to consider the impact on service charges.
8. On 29 June 2023 the stack was cleared of blockages consisting of fat and grease which would have come from the properties.
9. On 4 July 2023 a CCTV survey and clearance was raised it would appear to another part of the block.
10. On 10 August 2023, a job was raised and attended to address blocked pipes.
11. On 10 October 2023, a job was raised to undertake a descale
However, it was unreasonable that:
1. While the landlord by 18 January 2022 had carried out two CCTV surveys, according to the internal evidence, it had not taken any action as a result.
2. The landlord informed the resident that it would consider her plumber’s report of 16 February 2022. The report had stated that:
  1. It had identified a hole in the waste pipe from the bath. It concluded that it had been caused by a rodent crawling up the waste drain pipework of the building from the underground sewage system. The pipe had been gnawed from the inside.
  2. The plumber replaced the pipe. It recommended that a rodent deterrent be fitted over the access hole to the building waste water drainage system
3. There was no evidence that it did so or considered the recommendations. The resident asked the landlord for a follow up to her plumber’s report on several occasions, including 26 July 2022, and the landlord failed to respond. There was no reference to the resident’s report in the landlord’s records until it raised a inspection in September/ November 2022, which job was cancelled. The resident was still requesting feedback on the report at 7 June 2023. However, it is noted that other causes for the drainage issues were eventually identified. It is therefore not conclusive that there was any impact by not taking action. However, the chasing would have been frustrating for the resident and demonstrated poor communication.
4. On 27 October 2023, the landlord updated the resident that its contractors had cleared the immediate blockages, and identified how to access the internal communal soil stack which it would carry out to make further repairs easier. According to an update on 21 November 2023, the works were delayed. However, the works were carried out without needing to access the property interiors.
5. A number of jobs were cancelled. It was not possible to identify the reasons from the evidence the landlord provided to us. However, it is noted that on occasions, the resident was unwilling to give access given the number of inspections. This included in October and November 2022 when lack of access delayed, or possibly prevented, accessing the soil stack. In March 2023, she declined an inspection until she saw evidence that the internal stack was clear. While we appreciate the frustration for the resident, the landlord was entitled to explore all avenues. The evidence was not conclusive as to what impact this had on the repairs. The cancelled jobs included:
  1. On 4 September 2022 and 12 November 2022, jobs to carry out a CCTV survey and check the block because of rodents were cancelled.
  2. According to the repair logs, on 17 February 2023 a full stack descale was cancelled and a CCTV was recommended.
  3. An inspection raised on 31 May 2023. The contactors were to “accurately record the situation, any findings and any works completed (so we can pass to surveyor that is due to attend next Monday to look at all the ongoing issues)”.
There was no dispute that the drainage issues were caused at least in part by the communal drainage. On 15 January 2023, a neighbour had reported that their plumber had not identified any internal fault but the issue was from the communal pipes. That neighbour reported that the landlord’s contractors attended and opened the blockage in soil stack temporarily and recommended it needed proper cleaning.
The resident told us that as part of a resolution she wanted a refund for a valve she had purchased in 2021. The resident also told us she wanted £150 for the private drain unblocking undertaken in March 2023. She also wanted reimbursement of all drain call outs since 2020 incurred due to the absence of the landlord’s drains maintenance. The landlord has reimbursed the resident for the drainage invoice of March 2023 which we understand to have been for £114. We cannot find that she raised other drain call outs in her complaint or correspondence. As there is no indication this was put to the landlord or evidence of the expenditure, we will not investigate this aspect or make any findings’ note the resident has had the opportunity to raise any further costs with the landlord. It was reasonable that the landlord reimbursed the resident for the invoices she had presented.
The evidence showed that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports, understood inspections and took responsibility for the drainage issues by arranging to address the internal issues. It gave the resident the benefit of doubt and attended to unblock the drains in the property on 13 December 2023 and 16 May 2024 what turned out to be an internal issue.
We have noted that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports, that it addressed the issues in the resident’s property both by sending in contractors and by repairs to the communal drainage. It raised jobs to unblock the pipes, that it undertook descaling, CCTV surveyors, and the difficulties in diagnosing the roots causes. It affected some improvements including making it easier to access the stack. We understand that it was difficult to identify the cause of the issues. Various solutions were tried. However, the issues lasted for a significant time. The landlord did not do enough, soon enough. The landlord did not proactively update the resident following cleans and inspections requiring her to chase. In the circumstances, we have found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of blocked drains.
The evidence also showed that the issues impacted on the resident. There was the inconvenience and unpleasantness of her drains blocking. There was also the inconvenience of the number of attendances, the need to make arrangements for access. On 19 October 2022, the resident referred to taking unpaid leave. She worked in a school. The evidence also showed that she had to chase the landlord on a number of occasions including November 2021, on 8 August 2022, 27 October 2022, May, June, October and November 2023. It was not helpful that on 8 February 2023, the landlord referred her complaint of 25 January 2023 to the repairs team instead of addressing it as a complaint. The landlord acknowledged its communication required improvements, however it was frustrating for the resident.
On 14 February 2025, the landlord informed us as follows:
1. It attended before Christmas to carry out works but due to the length of time between quote and works the drainage had deteriorated. It requested a further quote which was supplied end of January. It was finalising the detail as a “Civil Company may be needed for a couple of the runs due to the depth”. The other works would be planned in as soon as possible. The landlord was leading on this. It was made aware of the drainage issues in a report from 2022 but it did not act upon them.
While we do not have the details, the lack of progress was borne out by the evidence. We note the drainage issues have not been resolved. It is positive that the landlord has provided a point of contact for the resident. We will therefore make a recommendation that the landlord provide the resident with a schedule of works and an explanation for the delays. We strongly encourage the landlord to take this action. This will help to reassure the resident that the landlord is committed to rectifying the issues.
We would have found maladministration in this case. However, we have taken account of the £786 (£900 less £114) that the landlord offered. The landlord did not break this down. We have therefore applied £500 to the complaints about the drainage and found reasonable redress in relation to those complaints up to April 2024.
We note that the resident made a further complaint. This investigation has not addressed that complaint.

The subsidence and cracks in the property.

Structural movement can take time to investigate and diagnose. Cracks take time to settle and need to be monitored over a period, often months, if not years, over the changing weather conditions. The landlord was also required to make a claim to insurers which would protect the resident as well as the landlord, as the resident could be liable for the costs of those repairs through service charges. An insurance claim can take time as the insurers would wish to satisfy itself of the validity of the claim and costs, and have the claim assessed by loss adjusters. The landlord would need to wait for the insurers’ approval before taking steps, otherwise it would risk invalidating the claim. There was no evidence of delay intaking the appropriate and relevant steps. The evidence showed that the landlord had contacted the insurers, that monitoring was taking place and in early 2024, works were being carried out.
However, while internal repairs were the resident’s responsibility under the lease, we would expect the landlord to consider undertaking any temporary repairs to reduce the impact of the cracks. While the resident reported on 14 October 2022 that she was unable to close her kitchen window, and on 2 November 2022 she was unable to close her living room window, we did not see any evidence of the landlord responding to this report until November 2023 when it said it would arrange for an inspection of doors that were difficult to open and would adjust them.
We would, in any event, expect the landlord to explain the processes to residents and to keep residents reasonably updated. The landlord reasonably invited the resident to report any health and safety concerns on 14 October 2022. However, we did not see evidence of the landlord responding the resident asking on a number of occasions, including 2 November 2022, for reassurance regarding the safety of the building. On occasions, the landlord would respond that that particular officer could not help, for example on 9 February 2023. It was unreasonable not to refer the enquiry to a person who could assist. The evidence indicated that the resident was going round in circles. She asked for the contact details of the head of repairs as the person who could answer her questions and was given a general email address which was not responding.
The landlord’s tone in its email of 9 February 2023 was inappropriate as it came across as impatient. If the resident was emailing the incorrect team, she was not to know which team could assist her. While the landlord is entitled to expect residents to remain courteous, it failed to understand the anxiety and frustration she was caused by the situation and its lack of communication.
Apart from a letter to leaseholders of October 2022, we did not see any proactive updating of residents. While, in response to contact by the residents MP, it said it would send out an update to all residents, we did not see evidence of one.
The landlord’s communication improved in early 2024. It updated the resident. It reported on 23 February 2024 that it was chasing the insurance and would consider escalating the steps it took. On 4 March 2024, the landlord informed the resident that it had instructed an independent structural surveyor to attend all effected properties to do a full report on internal damage and cracking to the property and ensure that the current damage inside the property was safe. It agreed to send out a report of a structural engineer who had attended on 24 March 2024. These were the delays to sending it due to the need to create individual reports. That was reasonable in order to protect leaseholders’ information. It updated the resident again on 11 April 2024 about the works it had been carrying out and planning. It provided the insurers’ timeline. It reported that it was addressing the trees that were causing the issue and carrying out a CCTV of the communal drains. It confirmed this was separate to the drains issue the resident was experiencing.
On 24 May 2024, the landlord updated the resident that all external monitoring would be completed by November. It confirmed that the repair works to individual properties were be covered by the insurance claim. It was arranging a further CCTV of the communal drains to assess the damage and works. It would send out the reports to the residents.
On 14 February 2025, the landlord informed us as follows:
1. The loss adjustors were overseeing the subsidence claim. Its contractor attended before Christmas to put together a Schedule of Works as the movement for the subsidence has been minimal. They were going ahead with the repairs. They are awaiting the scope of works to be submitted so they know the extent of the repairs. They will then review and arrange potentially providing alternative accommodation if required.
While communication was improved and the landlord was and continues to move towards resolution, the condition of the property had caused the resident understandable concern both due to the physical state of her property, the impact on the doors and windows and her concerns for her safety and that of the building. This was made worse by the initially poor communication.
As the subsidence is not resolved, we are making a recommendation that the landlord provide the resident with its plan of action and timescales. We strongly encourage the landlord to take this action. This will help to reassure the resident that the landlord is committed to rectifying the issues.
We would have found maladministration for how the landlord handled its communication in relation to the cracks in the resident’s property. We note that the resident will be entitled to make a separate insurance claim. We have taken account of the £786 (£900 less £114) that the landlord offered and the resident accepted in April 2024. The landlord did not break this down. We have therefore applied £286 to the complaint about the subsidence and found reasonable redress in relation to the resident’s complaints up to April 2024.

The communal flooring

The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of the fitting of the flooring in the communal areas. According to the resident’s email the residents of the block had been waiting since August 2021 to have it replaced. The landlord explained this was due to having to seek agreement from leaseholders under a consultation process required by S 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This did not explain such a long delay however the landlord acknowledged there had been undue delay and offered compensation
On 27 July 2022, the landlord wrote that it had considered the resident’s suggestions about the works. The landlord was entitled, subject to the previous S 20 consultation, to make decisions regarding the management of the replacing the communal flooring. It reasonably confirmed there was a one-year manufacturer’s guarantee in place and it was not going to pass on the cost of a replacement mat.
The landlord carried out some remedial works to improve the safety and longevity of the flooring. There was no evidence that the quality of the flooring caused condensation in the properties. In the circumstances, we consider that the compensation of £130 offered to the to be reasonable redress for the delays.

Staff misconduct

The resident’s complaint was about her report that a member of staff seeking to blame the resident for not providing access. She had experienced this as bullying and harassment. The Ombudsman is unable to make any findings about the behaviour of the staff member itself. We will consider how the landlord responded to the report. We would expect the landlord to address the report. We found that the landlord acted appropriately and demonstrated that it took the allegations seriously. It requested the voicemail message in question and made a number of suggestions how to send it to the. It offered to involve a senior member of staff. Its explanation that it was unable to investigate further as the member of staff had left was reasonable. We find that the landlord’s response to this aspect of the resident’s complaint reasonable. It did what it could in the circumstances. In the circumstances, we find there was no maladministration in relation to this complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping

We have not made a separate finding about the landlord’s complaint handling or record keeping. That is because we have incorporated our comments into the principal issues. We have made orders and recommendations in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling in other recent investigations. It would not add anything to the case to make them again here.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues.
In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cracks in her property walls.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of staff misconduct.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns standard of replacement of communal flooring.
In the opinion of the Ombudsman, in accordance with paragraph 42.d and 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The resident’s concerns about:
  1. Charges for remedial work to the communal flooring
  2. The costs of the management of the block of flats.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord at senior level should write to the resident with the following:
  1. An apology for the lack of progress in addressing the drainage and an explanation for the delays.
  2. An explanation of what drainage works were recommended to be carried out and a copy of the relevant report.
  3. A staged plan and timescale for those works
  4. A commitment to update the resident at specified reasonable intervals.
  5. The landlord’s plan about how to avoid a recurrence of these issues.
2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should provide to the resident the plan and timescales for the works in relation to the subsidence referred to in the landlord’s update of 14 February 2025 and continues to update the resident as reasonable.
3. The landlord should monitor the improvements it suggested in its complaint responses of 21 July 2023 and 1 September 2023 including:
  1. Ensuring clearer lines of communication. Ensuring a higher level of co-ordination, management and regular communication with its customers.
  2. Effective case management, to ensure that repair jobs were properly planned and co-ordinated, that customers are kept informed and that the work is verified as complete via a final inspection and sign off.
The landlord should feedback to the Ombudsman on the above recommendations.