We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Lewisham (202231597)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231597

Lewisham Council

31 October 2024

Amended 9 April 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 response to the resident regarding:
    1. Her queries and concerns about major works, including refuse, parking and health and safety issues.
    2. The consultation before the major works started.
    3. A non-functioning kitchen.
    4. The temporary toilet facilities.
    5. A lack of heating and hot water.
    6. A refusal to offer disturbance and ex-gratia payments for reductions in the provision of amenity and estate services.
    7. Contractor conduct.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in an 11-storey block. The landlord says the resident has recorded mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. In August 2021, the landlord informed residents at the block that it intended to carry out improvement works. The evidence shows that these include renewal of kitchens, bathrooms, roofs and windows, external redecorations and brickwork repairs, kitchen and soil stack renewal, render of previously cladded areas, replacement of balustrades to private and communal balconies, and replacement of door screens to communal balconies. The works started to progress from around August 2022 when scaffolding was erected.
  3. On 12 October 2022, the resident made a complaint. This included issues b. to g. above, which are now part of a legal claim and are not summarised below. She raised queries about fire safety issues, including risk posed by elements such as balcony doors, details on cladding works, and details about floor level fire stopping works. She raised concerns about contractor behaviour. She raised concerns about the impact of works on communal refuse. She raised concerns about a reduction in parking due to the works, abandoned vehicles and defective parking gates. She raised concerns about the necessity for the soil vent pipe works, the qualifications of the contractor doing them, and differences in the approach to the works for tenanted and leasehold properties. She raised queries about provisions for loss of light during works. She queried if scaffold would be erected for 2 years as with another estate. She requested explanation about why the contractors had not placed considerate constructors notices on their hoarding.
  4. On 30 October 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said skips had been installed to address materials generated by the works. It provided explanation about how the works were split into 2 phases. It said that the nature of the works would involve a degree of disturbance and inconvenience, and said it would continue to work with residents to address any issues. It said it would raise some fire safety concerns with its building safety team, but it addressed fire stopping queries, said a fire evacuation plan remained unchanged, said cladding was recently removed, and said it would provide information in future about plans to renew balcony doors and windows.
  5. It said it would raise issues with communal bins and operative behaviour with the contractor. It said that an increase in abandoned vehicles was the main cause for a reduction in parking, and it was working with the relevant local authority team to reduce these. It said that the soil vent pipe works were needed due to their poor condition and blockages, and it provided explanation about the approach for the works and quality controls in place. It said arrangements were being made to remove scaffolding. It confirmed that the contractor were considerate constructor scheme participants and were considering amendments to their hoarding.
  6. On 9 November 2022, the resident escalated her complaint. She raised concern about the works being a major disruption to residents, and about residents living on a building site without safety procedures in place. She was unhappy that the landlord had not given a date for fire door works. She noted that action had been taken for the bins, but said they remained a problem due to residents disposing of items after the works. She said that some contractor behaviour continued. She queried when the abandoned vehicle issue would be addressed, and if a repair had been raised for the parking gate lock. She said that the landlord had not detailed what problems were found with the soil vent pipes or answered why tenant kitchens were being replaced during the soil vent pipe works while leasehold kitchens were not.
  7. She raised further queries about fire stopping, and precautions when this was not in place. She said that the landlord had not answered questions about the cladding, and queried why it had been removed, how the building was currently protected against elements and fire, and what it will be replaced with, and when. She raised a query about the fire safety of PVC elements on balconies. She queried if there had been any considerate constructors scheme inspections during the works.
  8. On 16 December 2022, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It said that the resident’s safety concerns had been referred to the building safety team and supplied their details to contact them directly. It said it had raised her concerns about operatives with the contractor and this would be monitored. It said it was commencing a process to remove abandoned vehicles from 19 December 2022, which would take 6 weeks.
  9. It provided further detail about defects with soil vent pipes and said its approach for tenanted and leasehold properties was thought to be the most efficient way to carry out the works. It provided further detail about fire stopping. It said that cladding was removed as it did not meet regulations and was aimed to be replaced with external wall insulation. It said the removed cladding had not increased the fire risk, or exposed it to the elements any more than other elevations without cladding. It said that the UPVC doors and windows were compliant with building regulations. It said that the contractor had not registered phase 1 of the works with the considerate constructors scheme.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint. She said that the response was confusing, did not answer her specific queries, and assurances about issues such as health and safety had not been honoured. She said that residents intended to hold a meeting about the major works, which she encouraged the landlord and contractor to attend.
  11. On 8 February 2023, the resident held a residents meeting which the landlord and contractors attended.
  12. On 20 February 2023, an independent adjudicator provided a stage 3 response. They noted that there were regular site inspections for issues such as fire prevention by a site manager and a contracts manager. They noted that there were “toolbox talks” with operatives (which the stage 3 investigator saw evidence for) covering behaviour on site. They identified that it took a while for the landlord to establish safe working practices, which they would expect the landlord to learn from, but they were satisfied that the landlord and its contractor were now acting correctly. They recommended the landlord to review the mechanisms by which it establishes safe on-site practice to see if it can reduce how long it takes to do this and awarded the resident £200.
  13. The resident has continued to raise concerns with the landlord’s handling of the major works including safety. The evidence shows that these were considered in June 2024 by the Health and Safety Executive, who were satisfied that appropriate safety measures were in place and that no further action was required. However, it should be noted that the resident raised new concerns following this.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 41.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings.”
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaints from b. to g. above sit outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as these are the subject of court proceedings in respect to a legal claim that the resident made in July 2024. The Ombudsman considers court proceedings to be where a court has ‘issued’ a claim by stamping it and issuing it with a claim number, which the evidence shows happened on 26 July 2024.
  4. With this in mind, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries and concerns about major works, including refuse, parking and health and safety issues.

The landlord’s response to the resident regarding her queries and concerns about major works, including refuse, parking and health and safety issues

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns about the works, and understands the impact of the major works on the estate on the daily use and enjoyment of her home. We also understand the resident’s concerns about safety while living on the estate, and the worry, uncertainty and disruption the issues may have caused. We should note that it is not in our jurisdiction or expertise to make definitive determinations about building and fire safety and how works should be done. Our main consideration is whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s enquiries and concerns.
  2. The resident raised health and safety and fire safety queries concerns. The landlord acknowledged and set out its position on these. The landlord’s responses were not always as detailed as the resident requested or sought, however in the Ombudsman’s view the landlord provided reasonable explanation and assurances for issues such as fire safety. The landlord’s stage 3 confirmed measures in place to regularly inspect the estate, and this was positive to acknowledge and award compensation for delays in implementing measures.
  3. The resident was clearly concerned about the wider health and safety of residents, and fire services are responsible to enforce landlords’ legal fire safety obligations, while the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Regulator for Social Housing are other parties that can consider safety issues. It is noted that the resident did raise concerns to the HSE, and there is no evidence they raised further concern following enquiries in June 2024.
  4. The resident raised concerns about contractor behaviour. The landlord acknowledged this and provided confirmation that it would discuss this with its contractor and monitor this issue. The evidence shows that behavioural standards were a focus of operative inductions. This seems a reasonable response, as there were proactive measures in respect to behaviour, and the landlord made appropriate commitments to address the concerns.
  5. The resident raised concerns about the impact of works on communal refuse. The landlord confirmed that there were skips for the works, and that it would raise issues with bins with its contractor. The resident’s account confirms that action in respect to these was subsequently taken, although she raised a further issue. This seems a reasonable response, as the landlord considered and took action for the initial issues that the resident raised, and it made suitable commitments to continue to work with residents to address any issues that arose.
  6. The resident raised concerns about a reduction in parking, abandoned vehicles and defective parking gates. The resident said that the issue with parking had never been an issue prior to the works. The landlord confirmed actions and a timeline for addressing abandoned vehicles which were the main cause of parking issues. This seems a reasonable response, as the landlord confirmed action for the issues. The landlord did not address defective parking gates, which is not entirely satisfactory. This appears to have been a service request that the resident had the option to report via alternative channels.
  7. The resident raised queries about the soil vent pipe works, concern about the contractor’s ability to do them, and concern about the approach to them. The landlord provided explanation and set out its position about this. The Ombudsman notes that it is not in our expertise to decide how the landlord should carry out works. The landlord should take into account resident concerns, however it is also entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff and contractors when reaching such decisions, and in our view the landlord provided reasonable explanation.
  8. The resident raised queries about how long the scaffolding would remain. The landlord confirmed that arrangements were being made to remove this. It is unclear if other works required re-erection of scaffolding, however the landlord’s response reasonably addressed this query.
  9. The resident raised queries about whether the works were part of the considerate contractors scheme. The landlord confirmed this was being considered but that phase 1 of the works were not part of the scheme. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s desire for the works to be part of a scheme with some external oversight, however it is not evident that lack of participation in the scheme is a service failure.
  10. The above shows that when the resident raised enquiries and concerns after commencement of the works, the landlord considered and set out its positions on these. It also, with its contractor, attended a residents meeting which the evidence shows it provided some support to the resident to organise. This demonstrates that the landlord has sought to address the resident’s queries and concerns in a positive way. The Ombudsman notes the resident has raised dissatisfaction with responses to her requests for information. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about responses to requests for information, and the resident has the option to contact the ICO about dissatisfaction in this area.
  11. Overall, while the Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns, in our opinion, the landlord responded reasonably. This is because it demonstrates that it considered the resident’s queries and concerns, set out its position, provided reasonable explanation, and gave suitable reassurance that it would work with residents to try to address any issues that arose.
  12. The Ombudsman does note that there does not appear to have been a webpage about the works, unlike the practise by other landlords for works of a similar nature to publish information online. This may have been helpful with transparency and proactively answering queries, and so a recommendation is made in respect to this.
  13. The Ombudsman also notes that the same individual responded at stage 1 and stage 2, which is not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. This does not seem to have resulted in a significant detriment, but a recommendation is made in respect to this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident regarding her queries and concerns about major works, including refuse, parking and health and safety issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 41.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The consultation before the major works started.
    2. A non-functioning kitchen.
    3. The temporary toilet facilities.
    4. A lack of heating and hot water.
    5. A refusal to offer disturbance and ex-gratia payments for reductions in the provision of amenity and estate services.
    6. Contractor conduct.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to consider having dedicated webpages for further works at the resident’s estate and for future major works projects of a similar nature, which consolidate information and updates.
  2. The landlord is recommended to take steps to ensure that the person considering complaints at stage 2 are not the same person who considered it at stage 1, in line with its policy.