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

Tandridge District Council (202313622)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313622

Tandridge District Council

26 June 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 not giving the resident prior notice before the placement of scaffolding around the property
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property, a 2nd floor flat.
  2. On 16 March 2023 the landlord’s surveyor carried out a routine inspection of the external parts of the building. This was to identify if the facias, soffits, and gutters needed to be included within its planned maintenance programme for the financial year of 2023 to 2024. During this visit, the surveyor identified a piece of guttering that was loose and hanging directly over a boiler flu below. The landlord raised an emergency repair the same day.
  3. Between 24 March 2023 and 11 April 2023, the landlord erected the scaffolding, carried out the repair to the guttering, and then took the scaffolding down.
  4. On 20 April 2023 the resident raised a complaint stating the landlord had not given her prior notice before erecting the scaffolding outside her property. The landlord said it had passed the resident’s complaint to its surveyor.
  5. In May 2023 the resident chased the landlord for it to respond to her complaint. She then contacted the Ombudsman and asked us to assist her in raising a complaint with the landlord. In October 2023 the Ombudsman intervened and advised the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint about it not giving her prior notice before erecting the scaffolding outside the property.
  6. On 23 October 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. It apologised for not recognising the resident had asked to raise a complaint and awarded her £50 compensation in view of this.
  7. The landlord explained it had erected the scaffolding at the property to carry out an emergency repair of the guttering. It said this was due to the risk of it falling and injuring residents or causing further damage. The landlord said it had not given the resident prior notification because it was categorised as an emergency repair, and not part of any planned works where it would normally give such notice.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman stating that she wanted the landlord to investigate how long it took to carry out this repair, as she believed it had plenty of time to give her notification of the works it needed to carry out.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, 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 consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook states it is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property including the gutters. The landlord describes an emergency repair as a repair which is necessary to avoid a danger to residents or serious damage to property. It will aim to complete an emergency repair within 1 working day.
  2. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint within 2 working days. It will then provide its written response at stage 1 and at stage 2 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. It will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond, at stage 2.

The landlord’s handling of not giving the resident prior notice before the placement of scaffolding around the property.

  1. On 16 March 2023 the landlord’s surveyor identified a loose section of guttering hanging above a boiler flue. The surveyor said the loose section of guttering was 3 floors high and there was a risk of it falling. This meant there was a risk of the guttering injuring a resident or visitor to the building. The surveyor said there was also a risk of further damage being caused to the property, including the boiler.
  2. Therefore, it was appropriate the landlord raised an emergency repair because this was in line with its repairs handbook which describes this type of repair as being necessary to avoid danger to residents or serious damage to property.
  3. The landlord erected the scaffolding 6 working days later, on 24 March 2023. It then completed the works on 29 March 2023, which was 9 working days after it had raised the emergency repair. This was a reasonable response because although the landlord states it aims to complete this type of repair within 1 working day; it is recognised that timescales would be extended where it needs to erect scaffolding.
  4. We acknowledge the resident has said the location of the scaffolding impacted her peace and private enjoyment of the property. However, it was appropriate the landlord erected the scaffolding as the repair was 3 floors high. This is because the landlord has a duty of care in respect of the health and safety of its operatives and contractors who carry out its repairs. The repair itself was necessary to resolve a safety risk and therefore the scaffolding was also necessary as part of this repair.
  5. On 28 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to explain why it had erected the scaffolding outside of her kitchen window, without giving her prior notice. She also asked the landlord to provide her with a timescale for how long the scaffolding would be in place. The landlord responded the same day that it needed the scaffolding to repair the guttering and would get back to her with regards to how long it would be in place. This was a reasonable response by the landlord as it may not have known at the time when it would be taken down. This was because this would be dependent on how long it would need to repair the guttering, which it would not have known without inspecting it using scaffolding.

 

 

 

  1. Records show that on 30 March 2023, the landlord agreed to chase the resident’s request about timescales the following week if the scaffolding was still in place. The resident chased this on 5 April 2023. We have seen no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s contact on this date, or when she followed this up on 14 April 2023. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s communication.
  2. The landlord removed the scaffolding from the building on 11 April 2023, which was 8 working days after it had completed the repair. The scaffolding was outside of the resident’s property for 11 working days. We consider this to have been a reasonable timescale for the landlord to carry out these works, and we understand the scaffolding was not used for any other purpose than carrying out this repair.
  3. In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint on 23 October 2023, it was appropriate the landlord explained the reason it had carried out the emergency repair with the use of the scaffolding. However, in its written response it could have been clearer by answering the resident’s query about how long it had taken for it to carry out this repair.
  4. The landlord made an error in respect of it not responding to the resident’s emails on 5 April 2024, and again on 14 April 2024, which was after it had taken the scaffolding down. However, the landlord did clarify its reasons it needed to erect the scaffolding after she contacted it on 28 March 2024, and again in its final response. We have also taken into consideration that the landlord’s error in its communication did not have a significant impact on the outcome of the complaint. We acknowledge the scaffolding caused inconvenience to the resident, including impacting her privacy. However, this was unavoidable and there was no failing by the landlord in this regard..
  5. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration for the landlord’s handling of not giving the resident prior notice before the placement of scaffolding around the property.

 

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. On 20 April 2023 the resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint about it not having given her prior notice before erecting scaffolding around the property. The landlord responded that it had passed the resident’s communication to its surveyors. It is accepted the landlord did not log or acknowledge the resident had raised a complaint.
  2. This was not appropriate because we would expect a landlord to acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 5 working days, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling).
  3. We have seen evidence the resident chased the landlord multiple time in May 2023 about this complaint. We have not been provided with any information or evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s communication. This was not appropriate, and we understand caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she had to go to extra effort in trying to raise a complaint.
  4. On 18 October 2023 we advised the landlord to log the resident’s complaint and to provide a formal written response after the resident contacted us for assistance.
  5. We have seen no evidence the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response. The landlord should have provided a stage 1 complaint response in the first instance within 10 working days, in line with the Code. This is evidence of the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s complaint.
  6. The landlord provided its final written response to the resident’s complaint on 23 October 2023. This was 126 working days after the resident raised her complaint. This was a significant delay. We expect landlords to respond to resident’s complaints in line with the Code. This includes:
    1. Acknowledging a resident’s complaint at stage 1 and stage 2 within 5 working days.
    2. Provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days.
    3. Provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days.
  7. We will make a recommendation that the landlord should provide adequate training to staff responsible for handling complaints to ensure they are handling residents’ complaints in line with the Code.
  8. The landlord apologised and awarded the resident £50 compensation within its final response for its handling of her complaint. The Ombudsman has considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation. This amount awarded by the landlord is within the range of compensation the Ombudsman would issue if the landlord had not made this offer.
  9. Therefore the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s errors in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of not giving the resident prior notice before the placement of scaffolding around the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £50 it awarded the resident in its final complaint response unless this has already been paid.
  2. The landlord should provide training to staff responsible for handling complaints to ensure they are handling resident’s complaints in line with the Code.