Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202128090)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128090

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

19 February 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the floor and foundations.

Background

2. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat under a leasehold agreement.
3. In or around April 2018, the resident informed the landlord that the concrete floor of the property had dropped and was cracked. The property was inspected in July 2018 and identified that the floor had dropped up to 30mm and the cause of the fault may be subsidence.
4. The resident raised a complaint in August 2018 as he was dissatisfied that nothing had been done about the floor. In its stage 1 complaint response in November 2018, the landlord advised that the remedial work would begin in the spring of 2019.
5. In 2019 a further inspection of the property was completed. The inspection report dated 24 June 2019 identified that:
   1. the resident’s concrete floor had been poured directly onto the ground soil at the time of construction
   2. the property was built in the 1950s and the method of construction was appropriate for the time
   3. the cause of the fault was settlement of the ground soil beneath the floor, which had eroded over time
   4. the concrete flooring required complete renewal.
6. In January 2020, the resident raised another complaint about the lack of progress on the repairs to his floor. In its stage 1 complaint response on 26 January 2020, the landlord explained that the works were in the process of being tendered.
7. In April 2020, the resident raised another complaint about the lack of progress on the repairs to his floor. In its stage 1 complaint response on 6 May 2020, the landlord explained that further delays had been caused due to COVID-19.
8. On 6 April 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it had decided it would not undertake the remedial works to his floor. It stated that under the terms of the lease, the resident was responsible for the flat, which included the floor.
9. In its stage 1 complaint response on 7 April 2022, the landlord stated the resident was responsible for internal repairs to the property, and it was responsible for external repairs.
10. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, in that he disagreed with its conclusion that he was responsible for the repairs to his floor. In its stage 2 response on 29 June 2022, the landlord:
    1. acknowledged that it had delayed in providing the resident with its decision
    2. offered £300 compensation for the delay
    3. stated that it would not reimburse the resident for the cost of replacing the floor
    4. reiterated its explanation that the resident was responsible for the floor under the terms of the lease.

Assessment and findings

Responsibility for repairing the floor

11. The first schedule of the lease agreement defines ‘the flat’ as including the floor in the property. Section 5(11) of the lease states that it is the resident’s responsibility to keep every part of the flat in good repair. Section 7(2) of the lease states that it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the flat and building in good repair and make good any defects affecting the structure.
12. Several inspections of the property have been carried out. The inspection report dated July 2018 indicates that the cause of the dropped floor may be subsidence. The inspection report dated June 2019 indicates that the cause of the dropped floor may be settlement of the underlying soil.
13. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that the resident was responsible for the repairs because, under the terms of the lease, he was responsible for the floor. In correspondence with this service, the landlord indicated that it was not responsible for repairing the resident’s floor because:
    1. the structural foundations had not moved
    2. the fault was not caused by subsidence
    3. the fault was only affecting the resident’s property.
14. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord is correct in asserting that the resident is responsible for the floor of the property. However, the resident is not responsible for the ground beneath the floor, which is exclusively the responsibility of the landlord.
15. The evidence indicates that the cause of the drop of the floor, and therefore the damage to the resident’s property, is movement in the foundations beneath the floor. Whether this is a result of subsidence or settlement is irrelevant to the landlord’s responsibility for the foundations and its repair.
16. Furthermore, whether the movement in the ground beneath the floor caused damage to one property or multiple properties is also irrelevant to the landlord’s responsibility for the foundations and its repair.
17. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the resident’s floor because the damage to the resident’s property was caused by movement in the foundations, which the landlord is responsible for.
18. Correspondence between the resident and landlord indicates that between April 2018 and April 2021, the landlord acknowledged that it was responsible for the repairs. In April 2021, it then decided that it was not responsible for the repairs. The Ombudsman cannot speculate as to why the landlord changed its decision at this time.
19. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s decision to not take responsibility for the repairs was a significant failure. That it did so after 3 years of indicating to the resident that it was responsible for the repairs aggravates this failure.

Time taken to address the repairs

20. The Ombudsman expects landlords to respond to repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair.
21. Where there is a delay in responding to repairs the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
    1. explaining the cause of the delay
    2. explaining what it intends to do about it
    3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of those delays.
22. The evidence indicates that the resident first raised concerns in or around April 2018. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this report at the time. This was a failure by the landlord.
23. This service understands that the July 2018 inspection report was commissioned by the resident. This should not have been necessary. The landlord ought to have attended within a reasonable time to conduct its own inspections of the property. This was a failure by the landlord.
24. In correspondence with the landlord, the resident indicated that he wanted the landlord to pay the cost of this inspection. Although the Ombudsman appreciates that the delay in the landlord taking action on the reported repair would have been frustrating to the resident, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that it was strictly necessary for him to commission the inspection.
25. The landlord commissioned its own inspection in April 2019 and the inspection report was produced in June 2019. It therefore took the landlord at least 12 months to inspect the property. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was unavoidable or reasonable. This was a failure by the landlord.
26. Between 2018 and 2019, the resident raised several complaints about the landlord’s lack of progress on the repairs. In a complaint response on 26 January 2020, the landlord explained that surveys had been completed and the work was in the process of being tendered.
27. The Ombudsman acknowledges that major works such as those required to repair the resident’s floor and the underlying foundations can take time to plan. However, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord took a proactive approach to keeping the resident informed about the cause of the delays, or what it intended to do about it. This was a failure by the landlord.
28. The resident raised a further complaint about the lack of progress in April 2020. In its complaint response on 6 May 2020, the landlord explained that the repairs had to be suspended due to the restrictions that were recently put in place by the Government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord for this.
29. In April 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it would not complete the works it had previously agreed to because it believed it was not responsible for the repairs. As noted in paragraphs 11 to 19 of this report, this was a significant failure by the landlord.
30. This service understands that at some point in 2021, the resident undertook the repairs at his own expense. This should not have been necessary. Furthermore, due to the landlord’s delays it took over 3 years for the repairs to be conducted. This was a failure by the landlord.
31. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the behaviour of the resident during the period of the dispute could, at times, have been considered unreasonable – given some of the communications. It was positive to note that despite this, the landlord continued to correspond with the resident.
32. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that at times the resident was uncooperative with the landlord’s efforts to investigate the repairs, which included not providing key information when requested. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this will have contributed to some of the delays.

Summary

33. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs in that it:
    1. unreasonably delayed in completing the repair to the foundations
    2. did not take proactive action to keep the resident informed of the delays in commencing the repair works or what it intended to do about it
    3. after 3 years of delays, it incorrectly informed the resident that it was not responsible for the repairs.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

35. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. pay the resident £3,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in responding to the repairs, and its assertion it was not responsible for the repairs
    2. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the above payment.
36. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 56 days of the date of this determination:
    1. make all reasonable efforts to establish what repairs have been completed by the resident and provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman
    2. make all reasonable efforts to establish whether any further repairs are required to the foundations or the floor and provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman
    3. if further repairs are required, make all reasonable efforts to arrange those repairs and provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman
    4. establish the cost of the repairs undertaken by the resident, and compensate the resident the full value of those costs
    5. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of this payment
    6. decide whether it intends to recharge residents at the building some or all the cost of the repairs through service charges and inform the Ombudsman of its decision.

Recommendations

37. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord undertake a thorough review of this case to identify lessons learnt. This ought to include:
    1. how the landlord responded to the repairs
    2. the cause of the delays
    3. how the landlord reached the conclusion that it was not responsible for the repairs.
38. The landlord may wish to ensure its leasehold staff receive training on:
    1. responsibilities of the landlord under its leases in respect of the property and the buildings, structure and exterior, including foundations
    2. insured perils – namely that whilst settlement might not be covered under buildings policies and subsidence might, the insurer’s decision does not have an impact on whether the landlord is responsible separately.