London Borough of Lambeth (202232944)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232944

Lambeth Council

27 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Roof repairs and damage to the resident’s property caused by leaks from the roof.
   2. The associated complaints.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. His property is a 2-bed flat. The landlord is a local authority.
3. In May 2022, the resident reported that several tiles had fallen off the roof of the building. He raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs in November 2022. This complaint will be referred to as complaint A. In his complaint, the resident stated that:
   1. The landlord had not addressed the repair in a timely manner and very little had happened since he initially reported the job.
   2. Contractors had attended and there was an outstanding request to erect scaffolding.
   3. He was likely to face issues such as damp in the property due to the length of time the issues were ongoing.
   4. The landlord incorrectly labelled the job as completed.
4. On 23 November 2022, the landlord told the resident that it needed to chase the contractor about the repairs job before a formal complaint could be raised. It said that it would raise a complaint if its contractor did not respond after 10 working days. On 2 December 2022, the resident confirmed he wished to complain about the ongoing delay in completing the repairs.
5. The resident raised a new complaint on 1 March 2023 about the landlord’s handling of the repair to the roof, drainage and chimney breast which he said may have caused internal leaking. This complaint will be referred to as complaint B. The resident stated:
   1. The roof repairs had still not been resolved and the landlord had not regularly communicated with him about the repairs.
   2. The communication between the landlord and the 3 contractors involved was unclear and he had been provided contradictory information. He said that none of the parties involved understood the job as a whole.
   3. On 20 February 2023, the contractor said it would contact him in 24 hours. However, it did not provide an update despite the resident calling to request this.
   4. The service from the contractor was unprofessional and unhelpful.
6. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 20 March 2023. He stated that he had lost a significant amount of time pursuing both the repair and the complaint with the landlord. He also said that the landlord’s delays in completing the repairs had likely contributed to damp and difficulties in keeping his property warm.
7. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 18 October 2023. It stated that:
   1. The repair required access to the neighbouring freeholder’s property, but the neighbour had not granted the landlord access.
   2. Due to access issues, the landlord appointed an abseiling team to complete the repairs. The team attended on 29 August 2023 and determined that access to a specific part of the roof and chimney via the freehold property was necessary.
   3. It had obtained access to the freeholder’s side gate, and the abseiling team completed repairs to the roof and chimney on 15 September 2023.
   4. It upheld the complaint as the repair had taken a considerable amount of time since the resident’s initial report.
   5. The delays were primarily caused by the freehold property not providing access, but the landlord could have taken more proactive efforts to engage with the freeholder to secure access sooner.
   6. It apologised for the delay in completing the repair and the damage caused to the resident’s home.
   7. It had arranged for a surveyor to assess the internal damage and would complete the recommended repairs.
8. On 26 October 2023, the resident confirmed that he wanted the Ombudsman to investigate complaints A and B. He stated that:
   1. The landlord’s complaint response provided no detail on complaint A.
   2. The landlord had not offered any compensation despite the significant delays and time spent chasing up the repairs and complaints. He stated that between £750-£1,000 would be appropriate.
   3. He did not receive a stage 1 complaint response for either complaint and the stage 2 response was significantly delayed.
9. In further correspondence with the Ombudsman in May 2024, the resident stated that the landlord had completed the main roof repairs and fixed the source of the leak. However, he said the internal remedial works had not been carried out. The resident stated that the landlord should pay him between £1,500 – £2,000 compensation as a resolution to his complaint and introduce systematic changes to its approach to repairs and complaints handling.
10. On 12 June 2024, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that the resident had reported a further leak, and the internal works had been put on hold until it had completed the repairs. 

Assessment and findings

11. The lease agreement states that it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep in repair the structure of the building including the roof and roof space.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs by priority and urgency. The policy states that the landlord will respond to ‘routine 1’ repairs, such as leaking baths within 7 days and ‘routine 2’ repairs, such as repairing a ceiling, within 28 days.
13. The resident’s initial report on 22 May 2022 related to roof tiles at the front of the property. The landlord has not provided any evidence to reflect actions it took to inspect or repair the roof in the months following the resident’s report. The landlord should ensure it keeps clear and accurate records of repairs, so that an audit trail can be maintained. The landlord has therefore failed to demonstrate that it took repairs action within 28 days, in accordance with its repairs policy.
14. In his complaint dated 21 November 2022, the resident stated that contractors had attended and he had been told that there was an outstanding scaffolding request. On the same date, the resident reported that the gutters were blocked and a leak was causing water ingress on the external rear wall of the building. The landlord informed the resident that it had chased the contractor and someone would contact him to confirm when the scaffolding would be erected.
15. Landlords should take a proactive approach to resolving repairs issues and regularly update residents about the progress of repairs. The evidence indicates unreasonable delays in the landlord progressing the repairs and there is no indication that it maintained regular communication with the resident. It is unreasonable that it only chased the contractor after the resident raised a complaint. This was a failing by the landlord.
16. As part of complaint A, the resident questioned why the repairs job had been marked as complete when the repairs were outstanding. The landlord stated that its system marked jobs as complete when they reach their target date. It is concerning that the landlord’s system may provide inaccurate information to staff about the status of repairs, and this could lead to repairs being missed. This also puts unreasonable responsibility onto residents to monitor and chase completion of works. It is unclear whether this contributed to the repairs delays in this case. We have made an order below for the landlord to review its processes. 
17. The resident raised complaint B on 1 March 2023 about further issues with the roof, relating to the rear of the building. The resident reported that this had evolved from the original May 2022 repair, which was still outstanding.
18. The resident informed the Ombudsman that some roof repairs at the front of the property were carried out in April 2023. The landlord has not provided any relevant repairs records and it is unclear what works were done. Further, the repairs were carried out approximately 11 months after the resident’s initial report, which was a significant delay outside of the 28-day timeframe for routine repairs set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. This was a failing by the landlord.
19. On 20 and 26 June 2023, the resident further contacted the landlord and stated that the rear roof repairs had not been completed and scaffolding had not been erected. He stated that the guttering was blocked and there was further leaking due to heavy rain. The landlord has not provided evidence to indicate it took any repairs action or communicated with the resident in the weeks following this report.
20. The landlord arranged for abseiling contractors to inspect and repair the roof on 29 August 2023. This was a reasonable action due to the reported difficulties in accessing the freeholder’s property to erect scaffolding. The contractor documented that it cleared guttering and replaced 3 broken roof slates. Its report states that it could not address issues on the other side of the building as it required access to a neighbouring property to complete the repairs.
21. The landlord wrote to the neighbouring properties on 8 September 2023 to request required access to the side gate. The neighbours granted access and the abseiling contractor attended again on 15 September 2023 and carried out works to the loose ridge tiles at the rear of the building. 
22. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that repairs delays were caused due to the freehold property not agreeing access for scaffolding to be erected. While this may have reasonably caused some delay, the landlord has not provided evidence to reflect any attempts to contact the freeholders prior to September 2023. It is therefore unclear what efforts the landlord made to gain access in the months prior to this. The landlord appropriately identified that it could have taken more proactive efforts to secure access from the freeholders.
23. Overall, there was a failing by the landlord to complete the repairs within the timeframes stipulated in its repairs policy and to engage in regular contact with the resident about the repairs. A finding of maladministration has been made. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether suitable remedies have been offered in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord acknowledged the repairs delays, but did not make sufficient efforts to remedy the failings identified.
24. The resident incurred time and trouble in pursuing the repairs which took approximately 14 months to fully resolve. The landlord has not demonstrated that it regularly communicated with the resident about the repairs and he was required to spend time chasing the landlord. It is likely that the resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the damage caused to the inside of his property, which was exacerbated by the delays in completing the repairs.
25. The landlord informed us that it had waived the consultation for the works, meaning that the resident would not be liable for the cost of the repairs, which was £8341.40 between the 2 properties in the building. However, it is unclear whether this cost was for the further roof repairs required after the stage 2 response. The further roof repairs have not been considered by the Ombudsman as they were reported after the stage 2 response, and therefore outside the timeframe considered by this investigation.
26. In order to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive, but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.
27. The landlord made some efforts to put things right by offering to repair the damage inside the resident’s property that had been caused by the leak. In June 2024, the landlord informed us that this had been delayed due to a further leak in the roof. It is unclear whether the landlord has now completed the remedial repairs. We have made an order for the landlord to confirm the status of the repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

28. The landlord has not provided the complaints policy that was in place at the time the resident made his complaints. Its recent complaints policy states that the landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process aimed at resolving complaints at the earliest opportunity. The policy states that it will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt and set out its understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. The policy states that at stage 1 of the complaints process, the landlord will send a written response to the resident within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint.
29. The policy says that the landlord should acknowledge complaint escalations within 5 working days of receipt and send a stage 2 written response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. Where cases are particularly complex and a full response cannot be provided in the standard timescale, the landlord will contact the resident within 20 working days of the acknowledgement to advise why an extension is needed and advise of the expected timescale for the full response. The policy states that an extension must not be more than 20 working days without good reason.
30. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so, and that if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint it must be able to evidence its reasoning.
31. When the resident raised complaint A on 21 November 2022, the landlord informed him that the correct process was for it to chase the contractors about the repairs before logging a formal complaint. However, this was not in line with its complaints policy and the landlord did not provide a valid reason for not logging the complaint.
32. On 2 December 2022, following further correspondence with the landlord, the resident confirmed that he wished to raise a complaint about the repairs delays.  However, there is no evidence that the landlord logged the complaint or that it provided a valid reason for not accepting it. The landlord did not issue a stage 1 or 2 response in relation to complaint A, which was a significant falling by the landlord to follow it complaints process.
33. The resident raised complaint B on 1 March 2023. On 3 March 2023, the landlord stated that a response would be provided within 10 working days. However, the landlord did not provide a response within this timeframe and the resident chased the landlord on 7 May 2023 and 20 June 2023.
34. The resident raised his complaint with the Ombudsman and we contacted the landlord on 11 October 2023 and asked it to respond to the complaint. The landlord did not issue a stage 1 response and instead provided a stage 2 response on 18 October 2023. This was approximately 7 months after the resident raised complaint B, which was a significant delay outside of the 20-working day timeframe for stage 2 responses. It is also noted that the landlord only issued its stage 2 response after the Ombudsman’s involvement, which indicates further poor complaint handling.
35. The complaint handling failings identified amount to maladministration by the landlord. The landlord failed to communicate with the resident about his complaints and he spent time chasing the landlord for a response. The resident likely experienced distress and inconvenience as the landlord did not respond to complaint A through its complaints process and there were significant delays in it providing the stage 2 response regarding complaint B. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £250 to remedy its complaint handling failings.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of roof repairs and damage to the resident’s property caused by leaks from the roof.
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling. 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

38. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £650 compensation, made up as follows:
       1. £400 regarding its handling of the repairs.
       2. £250 regarding its complaint handling.
    2. Review its internal repairs system and assess whether changes should be made so that it accurately reflects the status of outstanding repairs.
    3. Confirm whether the roof repairs and internal remedial repairs have been completed. If the repairs have not been completed, the landlord should provide a repairs action plan, with timeframes, to the resident and the Ombudsman.
39. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the orders to the Ombudsman within the timeframe specified.

Recommendations

40. It is recommended that the landlord conduct staff training on the importance of keeping clear and accessible records of repairs.