London Borough of Lambeth (202430661)

Background

1. The resident holds an introductory secure tenancy in a 2-bedroom fourth floor flat which started on 13 May 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns with the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.

4. The landlord’s handling of this issue could have been improved. The landlord missed the opportunity to complete this work before the tenancy began, which could have avoided this complaint. While it was positive that the landlord arranged an inspection when notified of the issues, this took longer than what was reasonable.
5. We therefore order the landlord to apologise for this and pay compensation for the impact this had on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

6. The landlord’s complaint handling could have been improved. While the landlord acknowledged a delay in issuing its stage 1 response, it offered no apology to put this right. It did not address all aspects of the resident’s original complaint and failed to identify this throughout its complaint process.

7. We, therefore, order the landlord to apologise for this and pay compensation for the impact this had on the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The landlord has produced a tenant handbook for its residents. Within this handbook it provides details of the work it commits to complete before the start of a tenancy. This includes (but is not limited to) that:
   1. The property is clean – all waste and items belonging to the previous resident will be removed from the property.
   2. All kitchen and bathroom units are clean and working properly.
   3. Floor coverings in the wet areas such the kitchen, bathrooms/ toilet flooring will be repaired or replaced as necessary, will be washable and clear from paint, scratchings, and stains.
   4. Front or back door (external) – will be sound, secure, giving protection from wind and water penetration. The back/balcony doors will be checked to ensure that they are secure, have keys and open and close properly.
9. When the resident raised her complaint, she told the landlord that she was unhappy with the following:
   1. The general cleanliness.
   2. The kitchen units were not clean and contained the previous tenant’s items.
   3. The flooring in the toilet was stained.
   4. The balcony door was not secure, and she did not have a key for the bottom of her front door.
10. However, it was positive that when the resident notified the landlord of these issues, in raising her complaint, that the landlord arranged an inspection. This was originally arranged for 15 October 2024 but completed on 23 October 2024 due to the resident’s availability.
11. The survey confirmed that repairs to the property were required, and the evidence produced by the landlord show that these repairs were promptly raised.
12. While we acknowledge that the landlord’s repair policy does not indicate a timescale for an inspection, we expect that this would be completed within a reasonable time, to allow for any identified repairs to be completed in accordance with the appropriate timescale in its repair policy.
13. This inspection date was 41 working days after the landlord was notified of this issue. The landlord has not evidenced why it took so long to arrange the inspection; therefore, this is a failing, which will likely have caused the resident further frustration.

14. Our Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. It requires landlords to acknowledge both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. And issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledgment and stage 2 responses within 20 working days of an escalation request.
15. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
16. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint or stage 2 escalation. This was not in line with the Code or its own policy and was a failure.
17. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 September 2024, 29 working days after the resident submitted her complaint. This was beyond the required timescales. The landlord has not provided any reason for this delay, or any evidence that it agreed an extension with the resident, in line with the Code.
18. The landlord used its stage 1 response to acknowledge its delay and explained it was due to increased workloads. However, its acknowledgement lacked sincerity and failed to offer an apology.
19. The Code expects a landlord to address all points raised in the resident’s complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address several points raised by the resident. This included:
    1. The issues with the balcony and front door.
    2. The issues with the electrics.
    3. The reason why it had not been in touch about the exposed radiator pipes.
    4. The resident’s question about the leak in the kitchen.
    5. The resident’s dissatisfaction around the décor of the property.
    6. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the amount of time she had to move into the property and the impact this had on her disability.
20. This was a failure which was not identified or acknowledged by the landlord throughout its complaints process.
21. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 November 2024, 25 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This response was in line with the Code, considering the timescales the landlord had to acknowledge and respond.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. We did not identify any concerns with the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

23. There was some communication issues identified in this investigation. The landlord booked an inspection date without consultation with the resident, despite its repairs policy committing to trying its best to give an appointment to suit the resident. Subsequently this was not communicated internally, which led to the surveyor still attending the property. Both issues could have been avoided with better communication.