Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202300616)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300616

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

13 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of cracks in the walls, including the associated repairs.
  2. The Service has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, who is a housing association. He has a joint tenancy with his wife which started in November 1987. The property is a 3-bedroom end of terrace house. The landlord has no record of vulnerabilities within the household.  
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2021 to report a crack that had appeared near a bedroom door. The landlord’s contractor attended on 27 May 2021. The operative took photographs of the damage and passed them to a surveyor as they believed that the crack may be due to subsidence. The operative recorded the crack was from the ceiling to the top of the door frame and that the bedroom door had detached from the wall. The surveyor carried out a home visit on 22 February 2022.
  3. On 15 December 2022, the landlord commissioned an independent survey of the property. The purpose of this was to investigate issues of structural cracking to internal and external walls of the property. It was also to report on any other structural defects. The inspection was carried out on 10 February 2023. A defect report was produced and sent to the landlord in April 2023. This noted cracking to the exterior pebbledash render at a high level. It recorded that there was a diagonal crack internally, from the top of the door frame of the rear bedroom. Further, it recorded that the rear door from the lounge was poorly fitted. There with visible gaps in the timber frame and the lintel above was sagging. The report made a series of recommendations for works to the resident’s property, together with a recommendation for a further survey of the wall ties to show if these had corroded and failed.
  4. The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service on 5 April 2023. He said that he had tried to raise a complaint with his landlord, but they had failed to respond. The Service wrote to the landlord on 20 April 2023. The landlord spoke to the resident about his complaint on 24 April 2023 and provided a written stage 1 complaint response on 27 April 2023. In this it provided a timeline of the resident’s contact with it between 25 May 2021 and 14 March 2023. It said that:
    1. following its surveyor’s visit on 22 February 2022 it made a request for its contractor to provide a quote for works needed. This had not been forthcoming. It had pursued the contractor up to 25 October 2022, when it contacted a second contractor for a quote.
    2. an independent survey of the property had been completed in February 2023. Its surveyor had arranged for a follow up inspection of the wall ties and lintels, which was scheduled for 2 May 2023.
    3. it acknowledged how frustrating the delays had been for the resident. It apologised and gave an assurance that the repairs to the resident’s property were now in hand. It said that it had given the repairs priority and that it would complete these as soon as possible.
    4. it had taken learning from the resident’s complaint. It noted a need to ensure that works were carried through and completed when initially raised and that it should keep its customers updated with regular communication. It offered the resident £800 compensation in recognition of the delays and its service failure.
  5. The inspection of the wall ties was completed on 2 May 2023 and a report into the condition of the existing wall ties provided to the landlord on 19 May 2023. This said that these were at the end of their life span. This was causing a “widening of mortar joints and horizontal cracking”. It recommended the replacement of the wall ties. It further noted that it had not carried out an internal inspection at that time.
  6. The resident contacted the Service on 30 August 2023. He said that he had asked his landlord to escalate his complaint, but it had taken no action. He explained that despite several visits to his property and promises of repair works, none had been done. He was very frustrated having removed items from his garden in anticipation of scaffolding. The Service wrote to the landlord on 31 August 2023 and set a target for the landlord to respond by 5 October 2023. The landlord’s records show that it spoke with the resident about his complaint on 7 September 2023 and it notified the Service on 12 September 2023 that it was investigating his complaint.
  7. On 20 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. In this it thanked the resident for his patience. It said that:
    1. it was unable to change the outcome of his complaint.
    2. it offered him further compensation of £200 in recognition of its service failure and lack of communication.
    3. it noted that he wanted the landlord to undertake the repairs to his house, and that these had first been reported in May 2021. It acknowledged that these were still unresolved.
    4. its surveyor had confirmed that the property did not have subsidence. They had said that the issues were cosmetic and were not a danger to the resident.
    5. it recognised that there had been a lack of communication and updates. Further it noted that there had been several different people involved and that this had led to a failure to provide regular communication.
    6. the surveyor had been in contact with its contractor, and it would contact him further when it had more information and dates for the repair works.
    7. its new surveyor had been in regular contact with the resident and had explained that it had needed to “start from scratch to have the issues identified correctly”. It would now ensure that it put in place the correct fixes.

Post internal complaints procedure

  1. Following its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord’s internal communication through October and November 2023 shows further contact from the resident seeking updates on the repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord made any progress at this time to get a contractor in place to carry out the repairs. The resident contacted the Service on 8 January 2024 to ask that it investigate his complaint as the repairs to his property remained outstanding. He said that his landlord had said that it could be another 19 months before the repairs started. He was concerned for his wife’s welfare by the continued delay in the repairs, as these were making the house cold.
  2. In June 2024 further internal emails record a visit by the landlord to the resident’s property on 24 June 2024 with both a contractor and a scaffolding company. These recorded that it would carry out internal repairs once it had competed the works to the exterior of the property. Further, it had agreed with the resident that as extensive plastering was needed inside the property it would undertake basic redecoration once these were completed.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 December 2024. This set out that it had been working with the resident over the preceding months to put a plan in place to resolve the issues with his property. It said that given the scale of the works required it had needed to appoint an external contractor to carry out the works on its behalf. It acknowledged that there had been significant delays. It offered the resident a further £800 compensation. This was in recognition of a lack of communication and broken promises by its contractor, the time taken for it to start the works and the length of time that the scaffolding would be in place, and its repeated service failures.
  4. The landlord has provided an update to the Service. This confirms that it now has a schedule of works through January 2025 to complete the works to the exterior of the property. It said that in December 2024 it had completed the removal of the external render and replacement of the external wall ties.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of cracks in the walls, including the associated repairs.

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters, and external pipes. The structure means the elements of the property that give it its essential appearance, stability, and shape. This includes the walls, ceilings, and the foundations. Internal and external plasterwork are also part of the structure of the property. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out how it categorises repairs and the time within which it will carry these out. For most repairs this sets a target of 28 working days. The longest timeframe is set for planned repairs with a target of 60 working days.
  2. The resident first reported cracking in his property in May 2021. A plasterer attended within 2 days of his report. As the plasterer raised a concern that the crack could be due to subsidence, they did not complete a repair. The plasterer took photographs and was to arrange for a surveyor to attend. There is no evidence that the landlord returned to the resident’s property until its surveyor’s visit on 22 February 2022. Further, the landlord has provided no record of the outcome of this visit. This was a delay of 9 months between the initial report by the resident and attendance by the landlord’s surveyor. It is unclear why this delay occurred. There is also no evidence of the action taken following this inspection or indeed if the landlord provided reassurance to the resident that the property was not affected by subsidence. This was a failure by the landlord.
  3. A further 10 months elapsed before the landlord arranged for an independent inspection of the property. During that time, the landlord recorded that it had requested quotes from its contractor but that these had not been forthcoming. There is no evidence that the landlord proactively kept the resident informed of its actions during this time or that it was actively pursuing the quotation. There was significant contact recorded from the resident requesting updates on the works to his property. The landlord noted in its stage 1 complaint response that its surveyor had told the resident that it was chasing the contractor for a quote and “would contact you as soon as we receive an update.” It further said that it had given the works priority, and it would complete these as soon as possible. This gives the impression that it did not wish the resident to continue to pursue the repair but did not provide a fixed timeframe for the repairs. This was inappropriate in the circumstances. This left the resident without any clear information as to when he could expect the landlord to carry out the necessary repairs to his property.
  4. The independent survey was completed in February 2023, but the report was not provided for a further 2 months. A follow up inspection was completed in May 2023. This was 2 years after the resident first reported the appearance of a crack in his property. This was a significant and unacceptable level of delay. There was a failure by the landlord to take proactive steps to remedy a defect within one of its properties.  
  5. There is no evidence that the landlord acted on the findings of these surveys or that it had taken steps to monitor the cracking within the property to determine whether there was subsidence. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord told the resident that its surveyor had “confirmed that the property does not have subsidence, and the issues identified are cosmetic and not a danger to you or anyone else in the property”. This was dismissive of the resident’s concerns about the outstanding repairs. Furthermore, it did not acknowledge the other items identified in the inspection report around the ill fitted rear door and window to the property, which the resident had reported was making his property cold.
  6. The landlord has said that it experienced difficulties in obtaining quotes from its contractors and in getting responses to tender requests. It is acknowledged that this was the source of the delay. However, no evidence has been provided of the steps taken by the landlord to mitigate against this. There is no evidence that it approached a wider range of contractors or reviewed the scope of the works to engage a range of different contractors. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord considered undertaking the internal works to the property ahead of those to the exterior. The landlord has a legal responsibility to maintain its homes and it must ensure that it has the appropriate contractors available to support it in doing so. That it did not do so was a significant failure.
  7. In providing evidence to the Service the landlord has acknowledged its service failure, explaining the issues not only regarding the appointment of contractors but also in changes to its own staff and the impact of poor record keeping. It now has a programme of works to the exterior of the property which it will complete through January 2025. It has further acknowledged its service failure through its complaint responses to the resident with an offer of compensation. It offered the resident £800 in its stage 1 complaint response, with a further £200 at stage 2. This was in line with its own compensation procedure which has a matrix for compensation awards, considering the level of the landlord’s responsibility against the level of impact on the resident. This sets £800 as the maximum compensation payable. While it was appropriate that the landlord offered the resident compensation in recognition of its service failure, it did not provide a resolution to the substantive issues of the repairs. This offer has been considered in mitigation against the level of service failure by the landlord.
  8. The landlord did not address the repairs to the resident’s property within a reasonable timeframe. The repairs have been outstanding for over 3 and a half years. This was inappropriate and a failure to meet its responsibilities as set out within the landlord and tenant act. This amounts to maladministration.
  9. While the landlord’s own offer of compensation is acknowledged, the Service has considered the impact on the resident of the repairs being left outstanding for such a significant period. This impacted on the resident’s enjoyment of their home and garden and their ability to view this as a place of safety.
  10. An award of compensation totalling £906.36 has been made in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies. In calculating the compensation, the Service has considered the impact of the outstanding repairs on the resident’s use of his home and garden. The calculation has been based on 5% of the resident’s weekly rent of £99.49 for a period of 3 years, 6 months.
  11. In addition, an order has been made for the landlord to redecorate the resident’s property following the conclusion of the works. This is in line with the landlord’s obligations to make good damage to decorations that are a result of repair works.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint responses have been driven by contact from this Service. It is unclear from the evidence presented by the resident or the landlord if the resident took steps to directly raise his complaint with it in the first instance. In escalating his complaint, the resident told the Service that he had contacted his landlord, but he had received no response to his escalated complaint. While the landlord’s records taken from its housing system do not confirm this contact, there is evidence of significant contact from the resident about the outstanding repairs. It is conceivable that through this he raised his complaint about the landlord’s failure to deal with the repairs.
  2. In undertaking its investigations, the Service considers 3 key principles of dispute resolution. These are that the landlord has been fair, put things right and learnt from its outcomes. When asked by this Service to investigate the resident’s complaint the landlord did so. It acted appropriately in contacting the resident to discuss his complaint. Its stage 1 complaint response provided a detailed assessment of the actions it had taken. This further set out the contact that the resident had made with it since first reporting the crack in his property. It appropriately acknowledged failures in its service to the resident and set out the learning that it had taken from his complaint. However, the evidence suggests that it did not apply this learning. The repairs remained outstanding leading to an escalation of the resident’s complaint. Further, he had to pursue the landlord for updates, with no evidence of proactive contact from the landlord. Finally, the landlord’s complaint responses did not provide clear timescales for when it would carry out the repairs.
  3. There was a further failure to provide a response to the substantive issue of the resident’s complaint within its stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged a failure in its communication, offering an apology and an added sum of compensation. It did not apologise to the resident for the delayed repairs. As outlined above it dismissed the resident’s concerns by saying that the repairs were cosmetic. It did not give any detailed timeframe for the repairs saying that it had asked its asset team to keep him updated as to when the works would be carried out. This was inappropriate in the circumstances of the complaint and that the repair had been outstanding at that time for over 2 years.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord did not implement the learning taken from the resident’s initial complaint as the issues continued. The landlord met with and sent an apology letter to the resident on 10 December 2024. In this it acknowledged failures in its service delivery. It also apologised for a lack of communication, service failures and broken promises by its contractor. In this letter the landlord has appropriately offered the resident a further amount of compensation. It is however important that it accept that it is responsible for the delivery of its repairs service. The landlord must ensure that it has the necessary contractors in place to carry out repairs on its behalf and that it has structures in place to effectively monitor the performance of these contractors. The landlord cannot deflect its failings onto its contractors and must acknowledge its responsibility for service delivery to its residents.
  5. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as it did not effectively deal with the substantive issue and ensure that the repairs were carried out in a timely manner. In line with the Service’s guidance on remedies and the landlord’s own compensation guidance, an additional order for compensation has been made. This is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience cause to the resident by the continued delays and the landlord poor communication throughout.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of cracks in the walls, including the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies. It should set out the steps the landlord is taking to implement lasting improvements to its service.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,106.36. This is calculated as follows:
      1. £906.36 in recognition of the extensive delays in undertaking the repairs and the impact on the resident enjoyment of his home.
      2. £200 for the failures in its complaint handling.
    3. This is in addition to the compensation already offered to the resident totalling £1,800. The landlord should ensure that this is paid to the resident, together with the amount set out above, if it has not already done so.
    4. Provide the resident with a detailed schedule of works that it is carrying out to his property, both internally and externally. This should include detail of the works, expected start and completion dates and a plan for keeping the resident regularly updated throughout the progress of the works. It is expected that this will be overseen by a surveyor on behalf of the landlord who will act as the resident’s single point of contact. A copy of this schedule should be provided to the Service as evidence of compliance with this order.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Contact the resident to agree the scope of internal redecoration works that it will carry out following the conclusion of the internal works. The resident should be provided with written confirmation of the agreement reached and a copy provided to the Service.