Kirklees Council (202317062)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317062

Kirklees Council

24 February 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 subsidence reports.

Background

2. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom terraced house. She has lived there since 2007 under a secure tenancy from the local authority landlord. She lives in the property with her partner and child. The resident has a number of different health concerns.
3. The resident contacted the landlord to report her concerns about the cracks in the brickwork of her property in October 2021. The resident contacted the landlord about this again in September 2022. She said it had sent 3 people out who took photographs, but she had not heard anything since.
4. The resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint on 2 November 2022. This included the following repair concerns: 
   1. Cracks in the walls.
   2. The ceiling had separated from the wall.
   3. The floor had sunk and separated from the skirting board.
   4. The living room door did not fit anymore.
   5. Masonry being pulled apart.
5. The landlord responded on 11 November 2022. It had organised for a structural engineer to visit on 7 November 2022. The findings of this would determine the landlord’s next steps. After chasing the landlord, the resident requested it escalated her complaint on 3 April 2023.
6. The landlord provided its final resolution letter on 3 May 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience and upset caused by it not keeping the resident informed and the delays in progressing the work. It was awaiting quotes from contractors, which were expected in the next 2 weeks. The landlord would aim to start the works in the following 2 to 3 weeks. The landlord provided the resident with a named main point of contact. It said it had reviewed working procedures and accepted there was a failure to update the resident. The landlord said there would be significant improvements, and it was a high priority.
7. The resident chased the landlord for updates in August, September, and December 2023. She also asked a local councillor to get involved in the case on her behalf. In April 2024, she asked us to investigate the case. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this. As a resolution, she would like the landlord to complete the repairs to the house.

Assessment and findings

8. In its final resolution letter, the landlord recognised it had not progressed the repair as it should. The landlord apologised and provided assurances that there would be significant improvements in its communication. The issue was being treated as high priority. It set out a plan to put things right. The landlord aimed to start the works on 7 June 2023, 5 weeks after the final resolution letter. The landlord did not meet these assurances, and the work remains outstanding at the date of this report. The resident clearly and repeatedly reported to the landlord that she believed it had not improved its communications.
9. The landlord advised us it has not identified the root cause of the property’s issues. We saw that the landlord commissioned a structural engineer’s report dated November 2022, and a drainage survey dated October 2023.
10. The structural engineer’s report stated the front door lintel is dangerous. We acknowledge the landlord believed this report to be “unsatisfactory” and it wished to seek further information. We have not seen any outcome of this or any information to provide reassurance if the lintel is safe. This is a pressing issue which needs resolving urgently. It will form an order of this report for the landlord to assess the lintel. It will need to identify and complete any measures which need to be taken to make sure this is safe. There were also recommendations in the engineer’s report which we have not seen evidence that the landlord completed.
11. The drainage report dated October 2023 reported cracked and fractured sewer pipes. The contractor recommended patch repairs to resolve this. The resident chased the landlord for an update in April and May 2024. In May 2024, the landlord said it would organise the drainage repairs. In the evidence the landlord provided us with, we can see it completed this on 7 August 2024. The resident advised us that she was not aware if the landlord had completed the repairs. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states it has 3 categories of repairs:
    1. Instant response – where there is an immediate danger to residents or risk of further damage to properties, which it aims to attend in up to 4 hours.
    2. Emergency repairs – where there is a health and safety concern, but no immediate danger or further serious damage to the property, which it aims to attend in up to 2 working days.
    3. Responsive repairs – which it aims to resolve within 28 working days.
12. The landlord did not deal with issues raised in the structural engineer’s report, nor did it establish whether this report was accurate or not. It did not resolve the issues in line with the timeframes in its policy. From the resident raising the initial concern in October 2021 to the date of this report, it has not identified the root cause of the issues. This was despite the resident repeatedly reminding the landlord of the seriousness of her concerns. She also spoke to a local councillor and went to the landlord’s office to progress this. In response, the landlord repeatedly asked the resident for more time to complete its investigations, which are still outstanding at the date of this report.
13. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
14. The only time we saw evidence the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in its response to the repairs was after its final resolution letter in August 2024. It said that, due to her condition and the disruptive investigatory works, it was considering a temporary move or decant. The resident highlighted to the landlord that the stress caused her medical condition to worsen. This was supported by a medical practitioner, who the resident said wrote to the landlord on her behalf. The resident advised she was first told that a temporary move would be likely by an engineer working on behalf of the landlord in November 2022. It took until August 2024 for the landlord to seriously consider this. The resident has not been temporarily moved as of the date of this report, and she advised she does not feel informed of the timescales or what is happening with this.
15. Through the complaint process the landlord can assess its performance and put things right for the resident. The landlord did not fulfil the promises it made in its complaint responses. Therefore, it missed the opportunity to resolve things for the resident. This would have been frustrating and was likely to have led to increased dissatisfaction for the resident.
16. In accordance with the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of subsidence reports. The landlord did not provide evidence it followed its repairs and maintenance policy and the commitments it gave in its complaint responses, which resulted in it dealing with the vulnerable resident unreasonably. This is because it neither showed it made her property safe nor temporarily moved her until it could do so.
17. The orders of this reports are designed to put right the landlord’s failings in its handling of the resident’s subsidence reports. This is through an apology and steps intended to make sure the landlord progresses the repairs and that information is provided to the resident by it giving her a realistic timeline for these and her temporary move or decant. We have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1,000 compensation to recognise any distress and inconvenience she experienced from the severe long-term effect on her. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards in recognition of the landlord’s serious failings from its delays in resolving matters over a significant period of time, resulting in severe maladministration.
18. The landlord has additionally been ordered to pay the resident another £2,743.72 compensation to recognise her loss of enjoyment of the property based on her rent for this during the period covered by her complaint, as permitted by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This is made up of 25% of her rent of £75.01 per week for 26 weeks in 2021-22, £83.56 per week for 52 weeks in 2022-23, and £89.99 for 52 weeks in 2023-24. The landlord has been further ordered to learn from outcomes by carrying out a senior management review as to what happened in this case to identify the blockages and resolve these for the future.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of subsidence reports.

Orders

20. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident with a full apology for the failings identified in this report. In this it is to confirm whether it has completed the drainage patch repairs.
    2. Pay the resident £3,743.72 compensation, which is made up of:
       1. £1,000 to recognise any distress and inconvenience she experienced from the severe long-term effect on her.
       2. £2,743.72 to recognise her loss of enjoyment of the property based on her rent for this during the period covered by her complaint.
    3. Produce a report for the resident and Ombudsman. This will detail a realistic timeline for the temporary move or decant including the investigation and resolution work. This will give the resident an idea how long she may be out of the house.
    4. Organise for a suitably qualified person to assess the front door lintel. It is to identify and complete any measures which need to be taken to make sure this is safe.
    5. Carry out a senior management review as to what happened in this case, so it can identify the blockages and resolve these for the future. A copy of this is to be sent to its senior leadership team and to the Ombudsman.
21. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.