Newcastle City Council (202305992)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305992

Newcastle City Council

21 November 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 repairs caused by possible subsidence.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The secure tenancy was managed by the landlord’s Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO). For the purposes of this investigation, both the ALMO and landlord in regard to its housing management function, will be referred to as the landlord.
The resident lived at the property from 11 October 2004 until 5 March 2023. She has told the landlord and Ombudsman that she terminated her tenancy because of the repair issues in the house.
The landlord has not confirmed if it was recorded on its system, but it has told the Ombudsman it was aware the resident had a health condition.
On 12 July 2022, the resident reported cracked plaster in the bathroom and kitchen, and a sticking back door. She was concerned there were structural issues because trees were close to the property. The landlord inspected the issues in early August 2022.
At the end of August 2022, the resident chased the landlord as she had not heard anything. A further inspection took place and on 15 September 2022 the landlord sent photos of the issues to its asset team, to arrange a structural engineer’s survey. This was completed on 4 October 2022, and the outcome shared with the landlord the next day. The survey advised the landlord:
1. There was localised foundation settlement at the rear of the property which had caused cracked brickwork and internal cracks in plaster, especially in the bathroom.
2. The likely cause was the trees and shrubs.
3. That all the trees and shrubs needed to be removed.
4. Once they were removed a further inspection would be needed to plan the remedial works.
5. Drains should be checked.
6. There was some wall tie corrosion.
In November 2022, the resident had not heard anything and asked her housing officer for help. On 11 November 2022, the landlord called her and confirmed the work would start in the next week or two. On 13 December 2022 the resident complained to a local councillor that she had not heard anything from the landlord since 11 November 2022 and had not used her bath since July 2022.
Work started to remove the trees and shrubs, and this was completed by 20 December 2022. At some point in December 2022 before Christmas, the landlord attended to make safe the plaster in the bathroom so the resident could use the bath. The landlord told its contractors a scoping meeting would take place and told the resident works would start in January 2023.
By the middle of January 2023, the work had not started, and the resident contacted the landlord. The resident has said that the landlord told her it had no record of any proposed works. On 5 March 2023, the resident moved out and put in a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of the situation. She asked for compensation for travel expenses and utilities expenses she incurred using friends and family’s bathing facilities. She also asked for compensation at 50% of the rent charge for the loss of use of the bath.
In its 28 March 2023 stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the unnecessary delays and poor communication. It offered compensation as a goodwill gesture of £450 to clear the resident’s outstanding rent balance. The resident declined the offer and escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint’s process.
On 25 April 2023 the landlord spoke to the resident and on 2 May 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. The response confirmed the following:
1. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the level of service the resident had received.
2. The landlord offered £500 from its ‘sorry fund’ to mitigate some of the inconvenience caused.
3. It said it would investigate what processes had failed in this case.
4. That the landlord would not compensate the resident by half of the rent charge from July 2022.
5. How and where the resident could escalate the complaint if she was dissatisfied with the response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the impact the repairs had on her health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these health problems, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Repairs caused by possible subsidence

The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy reiterates this. An emergency repair should be completed within 4 hours. An urgent repair should be completed within 1,3 or 7 working days. A routine repair should be completed within 15 working days and includes plaster repairs and door repairs. Routine is categorised as a repair which will not seriously interfere with the comfort and convenience of the resident, while an urgent repair will seriously affect the comfort of the resident or cause potential damage to the property.
It took the landlord 17 working days to inspect the plastering and 21 working days to inspect the back door. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy does not tell us about any timescales for inspections. The Ombudsman finds the inspection completion dates reasonable. However, it was unreasonable that the resident had to chase the landlord 2 weeks later as she had not heard anything following the inspections. Landlords should notify residents in a timely manner of any findings and proposed works following inspections, verbally and in writing, especially if the works proposed are major works. It should record any visit notes and communication with the resident on its central systems. The evidence provided as part of this investigation does not evidence any notes from the inspections or conversations with the resident. The landlord acted unreasonably. It was not customer focused. The resident did not know what was happening with her repairs and the landlord’s lack of communication may have contributed to the resident’s concern and distress.
The landlord was reactive. When the resident chased the repairs on 24 August 2022, the landlord responded with a further inspection on 20 September 2022 and a structural engineer’s survey on 4 October 2022. When the resident had to chase again in early November 2022, the landlord told her works would start in a week or two. On 13 December 2022, having heard nothing from the landlord, the resident complained to a local councillor. This caused the landlord to act and by 20 December 2022, the trees and shrubs had been removed and by 25 December 2022 the bathroom plaster had been protected so the resident could use her bathroom. It is not known if, without the resident’s calls to the landlord, the work would have progressed. One contractor told the landord it had sent a purchase order request “a while back” and had no response. The reactive nature of the landlord’s actions show that the landlord did not have a grasp on the repairs at the property and no one was responsible for progressing the work. The landlord acted unreasonably. The resident told the landlord she should not have to call to get it to act. The landlord was not focused on resolving the repairs or providing the resident with a good service.
The landlord’s record keeping was poor, with no evidence of notes from the inspections or conversations with the resident. The landlord’s repair log was not comprehensive enough to show anyone what had happened and what was proposed. The landlord’s own complaint investigation was hindered by this, the investigating officer commented “there is only 1 plastering repair on for the property relating to the subsidence issue and nothing more, there isn’t much to go on.”
The importance of clear record keeping, and management cannot be over emphasised, given the impact it has on landlords’ effective overall service provision. This Service’s knowledge and information spotlight report (KIM) reveals how landlord’s services can be held back by weaknesses in data and information, that can turn an ordinary service request into an extraordinarily protracted complaint. It further notes that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. It is evident that throughout the life of this case that the lack of information in a central place and poor communication with the resident resulted in the landlord’s eventual failure to resolve the issues for the resident in a timely manner.
The resident has told the Ombudsman and the landlord that she did not use the bath from 12 July 2022 to December 2022, because plaster was falling off the walls into the bath and it was dangerous. No evidence has been provided as part of this investigation that shows the landlord’s reaction to the resident’s view. It is therefore unknown if the landlord completed a risk assessment of the situation and discussed it with the resident. There are no notes from the inspection in August 2022. In December 2022, the landlord attended the property to stabilise the plaster, an action which demonstrated the landlord agreed the plaster was a concern. The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why this repair to make safe the plaster took so long. The landlord acted unreasonably. Without any clear proposed action plan or view from the landlord, the resident felt unable to use her bath. The landord acted unreasonably. The resident and her family incurred financial expenses, time and trouble, distress and inconvenience going to family and friend’s houses to use bathing facilities.
The lack of communication, reactive nature of the landlord and poor record keeping contributed to the delays in this case. The work to the property was not completed by the time the resident moved out. This was 164 working days after she first reported the issues with the bathroom plaster and the back door. The Ombudsman recognises that the work required to resolve the issues was substantial and would reasonably take longer than the 15 working day timescale for a routine repair. There were at least 3 different contractors involved. The landlord was clearly intent to resolve the substantive issues completely which was positive. However, had the landlord had a good grasp on the issues and dealt with each step in a timely manner, the work it had completed may have been completed sooner. Considering the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the repairs, the Ombudsman finds that the repairs were not completed in a reasonable timeframe.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
In this case, where landlord failings have been identified, the Ombudsman must consider whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to put things right and learn from outcomes.
At stage 1 of the complaint process the landlord upheld the complaint, apologised for the poor communication and delays and offered £450 compensation, to be added to the outstanding rent balance. The landlord said it would use the case as an example to highlight ways in which it could improve its service.
At stage 2 of the complaint process the landlord also upheld the complaint. It offered £500 compensation from its ‘sorry fund.’ The response was not clear if this offer was in addition to the £450 offered at stage 1 or a replacement offer. As with the stage 1 response, the landlord said it would take the learning from the poor experience and look to make improvements to prevent reoccurrences.
The landlord fairly assessed the complaint with the information it had. It took the time to speak to the resident at both stages, and at stage 1 it visited the property. The landlord’s apologies came across as sincere. However, the landlord did not demonstrate it would learn from the complaint. It did not provide enough detail on how it would use the case to improve its service and prevent future failings. Providing more specific details may have showed the resident the landlord was serious about learning from this complaint.
The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that its final compensation offer was £950. This was a fair financial remedy in all the circumstances. This was proportionate to account for the loss of use of the bath and the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. The landlord does not have a compensation policy and has confirmed it uses the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. £950 is in keeping with a finding of landlord failures that had a significant impact on the resident.
A finding of reasonable redress cannot be made because the substantive issue remained outstanding, and the landlord did not clearly identify the steps it needed to take to put things right and learn from the case.
In September 2023, the Ombudsman determined a case on the same landlord – 202128122. The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to create an action plan on how it will improve its communication and recordkeeping practices in the future and put measures in place to ensure it keeps detailed communication and repair logs. The landlord complied with this order and lots of improvements were in process. Rather than ask the landlord to repeat the order, the Ombudsman requests an update on the improvements.
In summary, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The landlord offered a proportionate level of compensation to the resident. However, it did not demonstrate that it had taken adequate learning from the complaint or put in place measures to prevent future delays caused by poor communication and record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs caused by possible subsidence.

Orders and Recommendation

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident, in writing, for the impact of its failings on the resident.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £950, made up of:
1. £450 offered at stage 1 of the complaint process, if not already done so.
2. £500 offered at stage 2 of the complaint process, if not already done so.
3. If not already paid, these payments should be made directly to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears or other charge owed.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to review the action plan from case 202128122 and provide the Ombudsman with an update to this action plan, to include any changes, new actions, and progress with the proposed plan.
The landlord must comply with the above orders and provide evidence to the Ombudsman.

Recommendation

If not already done so recently, the landlord should revisit the Ombudsman’s spotlight on knowledge and information management (KIM) and conduct a review of its current and proposed procedures in light of the findings in this case and the recommendations in the KIM report.