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

Livv Housing Group (202326714)

Back to Top

                              

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326714

Livv Housing Group

28 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

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence repair works in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is the tenant of a 1–bed bungalow. She has lived in the property since 2016. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. In 2018 the resident told her landlord that there were cracks in the walls in the living room and bedroom. The landlord arranged for a plasterer to inspect, but they reported back that the problem may be subsidence. The landlord arranged for a specialist contractor to survey the property and carry out works to stabilise the ground around the property. It carried out the works in November 2018. The resident had to move out of the property temporarily while contractors undertook the works and had several temporary moves during this time, which she said had caused her stress and anxiety.
  3. In March 2019, the landlord completed further works to the property including repointing of brickwork, replacement of floor joists and floorboards, installation of floor screed, and damp-proof membrane to affected areas. In July 2022, the resident reported further cracks in the walls of the property. The landlord completed repairs to doors and appointed a different contractor to complete a further structural survey which went ahead later that year.
  4. On 6 October 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about the landlord’s lack of communication with her and its failure to address her concerns. It responded on 21 October 2022 and told her it was arranging a further structural report which would inform what works were needed. It said it would remain in contact with her and keep her updated about this.
  5. The survey report, issued in December 2022, concluded that further works to the property were necessary. It also recommended that, as the previous contractor’s works remained under guarantee, the landlord contact them to investigate whether they should return to undertake follow up works. The landlord did so, and there was a discussion between the landlord and contractors about whether the works would fall under the guarantee.
  6. In March 2023, the landlord arranged for a structural repair specialist to complete further investigations. They said that the structural repairs were complex and recommended a CCTV survey of the drains and a new ground investigation report. This found defects of displaced joints and tree root damage to the drains. The ground inspection report showed that the ground was clay based, and its consistency varied from firm to extremely weak in different areas of the property. The landlord instructed contractors to complete the works.
  7. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 1 June 2023. She said that there had been a lack of communication from the landlord about proposed works, and she had first contacted them in July 2022 about the subsidence problem, but it not yet completed further remedial works.
  8. The landlord responded to the complaint on 12 June 2023. It said that:
    1. It explained the reasons for the delays and that it had been following up with the previous contractor to decide if the works came under the guarantee.
    2. It apologised for the lack of communication and, going forward, provided a point of contact for the resident to direct any enquiries to about the works.
    3. It also accepted that its record-keeping was lacking and apologised for this.
    4. It offered £100 in compensation to the resident.
  9. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 11 September 2023 to follow up on the works. They also said that the landlord did not sufficiently communicate with the resident on the status and next steps of the remedial works. The landlord treated this as a stage 2 escalation request and called the resident on 28 September 2023 to discuss the complaint further. It said that the resident would need to move out of the property while it undertook remedial works. The resident expressed a preference for a bungalow in the local area. She asked for compensation for her inconvenience and stress.
  10. On 6 October 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. While remedial steps with subsidence cases are often complex and involve lengthy investigations, it acknowledged that there had been delays in the actions it had taken, and that its communication had been lacking.
    2. It aimed to start the works on 20 November 2023 and hoped to finish them by March 2024.
    3. It would work with her to find suitable temporary accommodation and it would arrange to move her belongings and furniture to the temporary accommodation.
    4. It would arrange for the project manager to give her regular updates on the status of repairs and send her a weekly update via email.
    5. It offered her £1,000 in compensation which included: 
      1. £100 for the delays in the repairs.
      2. £50 for closing her stage 1 complaint in October 2022 without following up remedial action.
      3. £100 for the delays in investigating the repair.
      4. £100 for its lack of communication.
      5. £150 for her time and trouble.
      6. £500 for her distress and inconvenience.
  11. The resident was unhappy with the redress offered and referred her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Post complaint

  1. The landlord arranged for the resident to move into temporary accommodation on 14 November 2023. It installed new carpets and blinds in the property prior to her move. The landlord provided weekly updates on the progress of the works to the resident, including an explanation for any delays and an amended expected completion date. It completed the works, and the resident moved back into the property on 10 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This Service notes that the resident has raised this matter with the landlord over several years and details of earlier reports have been helpful in providing a clear picture of the history of this complaint to date and the landlord’s interventions. For this investigation, however, these previous reports and the landlord’s responses are referenced for contextual purposes only. This is because the Ombudsman can only investigate those issues that have progressed through a landlord’s complaints procedure and then brought to the attention of the Ombudsman within a reasonable timescale. Therefore, this investigation will focus on events from October 2022 onwards.
  2. The resident has also said that the ongoing problem with subsidence in the property has had an impact on her health. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to find legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. The resident has the option to seek legal advice on this matter.

Subsidence works

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will attend to emergency repairs such as a loss of heating or hot water, within 24 hours. It aims to complete urgent repairs such as a leaking roof within 7 days. All other repairs should be completed within 28 days. Planned or major works will fall outside of the schedules in the landlord’s repairs policy, because of the planning involved and complexities of the works.
  2. When the resident raised concerns that cracks had begun to develop in her walls again in July 2022, following the works in 2018, the landlord followed its policy by arranging an inspection within 10 days. It took proper steps to raise works to repair doors, and to arrange a more in-depth subsidence inspection.
  3. However, it did not communicate this effectively with the resident. She contacted the landlord 3 times between August and October 2022, but it did not give her an update about the works. The resident raised a complaint in October 2022, and the landlord responded with assurances that it would improve its communication; however, when the resident did not see an improvement, she raised a new complaint. The resident was frustrated by the lack of updates, and she spent time and effort in following this up with the landlord.
  4. The landlord did take proper steps to investigate the subsidence further and asked its assets team to instruct a specialist to complete a structural inspection report in July 2022. This report was issued in December 2022. From the information provided, it is unclear what the cause of the 5-month delay between it raising the request and the specialist issuing the report. However, there is no evidence that the landlord kept in contact with the resident over this period to let her know what it was doing to progress the works. This was unsatisfactory, particularly given its assurances following her complaint. Even where there may be no updates, where there are lengthy delays, a landlord should check in regularly with residents to reassure them that matters are in hand.
  5. There was a further delay of 3 months from the date when the landlord received the structural report to when the landlord undertook works recommended in the survey by raising a CCTV and grounds survey. In the absence of an explanation for this delay, the Ombudsman finds it to be unreasonable.
  6. The landlord also engaged in correspondence with the original contractors over this time to decide whether they were required, under the guarantee, to return and undertake remedial works. Social landlords have limited resources, and they must use them to the benefit of all their residents. It was therefore right that the landlord investigated whether the previous contractor was responsible for the remedial works, to avoid unnecessary costs.
  7. However, as the landlord has acknowledged in its complaint response, it could have done so in a way that did not cause detriment to the resident. For example, it could have contacted the original contractors at an earlier stage. When the original contractors disputed that the works came under guarantee, the landlord could have arranged the works and then taken legal advice about whether the costs could be recoverable from them. The delays caused the resident further distress and inconvenience, which was compounded by the landlord’s lack of communication with her.
  8. The resident has described the impact that the ongoing subsidence problems in her property have had on her. She said that cracks would appear in the walls, and she described hearing movement in the property at night, which she found distressing. She said that her floors were uneven, and she was unable to close doors and windows properly because of the subsidence. Before she made her complaint, she said that the landlord had failed to take ownership of the works and when she called to enquire about progress, she was told that it was waiting for information from another team. She also found it disruptive when operatives visited her home on several occasions, but without there being noticeable progress with the works.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted these failings and offered the resident an explanation and an apology. It outlined the steps it would take going forward to ensure that it improved its communication with the resident. It put these measures in place without delay, and the resident was kept up to date with the works after she was decanted from the property, with a weekly email from the project manager and regular phone calls. The landlord also supported the resident to move to a suitable temporary property in the local area. Overall, the resident said that she was happy with how the landlord communicated with her during the works and she was also satisfied with the standard of the repairs.
  10. In identifying whether there has been any service failure, the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure.
  11. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged that there have been service failings which have led to inconvenience and delays. The landlord has taken steps to improve its communication with the resident, and it has considered her concerns about the disruption while arranging decant accommodation pending completion of the works. It also apologised to the resident and offered compensation.
  12. While we acknowledge that the resident considers the compensation offered by the landlord to be too low, the amount of £1,000 is within the range of remedies the Ombudsman would award where there has been a service failing that has had a significant impact on the resident.
  13. The Ombudsman therefore finds that the redress offered by the landlord was reasonable and satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to this investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the amount of £1,000 it had offered her in compensation at stage 2 of its complaints procedure.