London Borough of Lambeth (202216092)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216092

Lambeth Council

27 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, including:
1. leaks into the property from the roof.
2. damp and mould in the property.
3. rotten and damaged windows.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bed, second floor flat under a secure tenancy which began on 11 December 2017.
The resident has not declared any vulnerabilities and the landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for him.
The complaint relates to longstanding leaks into the property and issues with the windows, which the resident said had also contributed to damp and mould in the property.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 18 November 2022 in which he claimed that the landlord had breached his tenancy agreement by not completing repairs in the property. The resident said that he had been reporting repairs needed for over a year and that leaks and damp in the property were now causing damage to his home.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 March 2023 and upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord outlined what works had been attempted at the property, but apologised for the frustration and upset caused, particularly given that they were still outstanding. The landlord offered £470 compensation and escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 May 2023 in which it:
1. apologised for the delay in issuing the complaint response.
2. had booked roof repair works for the following day, which were due to be completed no later than 1 June 2023.
3. explained that it had experienced delays in the window repairs, but that its contractor would be in touch to arrange to measure and fit these shortly.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 5 September 2023. The resident said that:
1. there was an ongoing leak in his kitchen ceiling.
2. there was damp in the bedroom and front room walls.
3. every window in the property needed replacing due to either being rotten or having broken locks. The resident also said that a windowpane had fallen out of one window.
4. the landlord had erected scaffolding but then took it down again before completing any works.
The resident was seeking completion of the outstanding works, which he stated remained outstanding at the time of escalation and at the time of this investigation, with the exception of replacement windows, which had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The evidence provided in this case indicates that there have been reports of leaks and associated damp and mould in the property since at least 14 July 2021.
In investigating cases, the Ombudsman must consider what is fair and reasonable to both parties. In particular, we must consider whether complaints were brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable time. This would usually be within 12 months of the matters arising.
On this basis, this investigation will only consider matters raised by the resident from 18 November 2021 onwards, as this was 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint. Matters raised prior to this time were not brough to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period and will not be considered as part of this determination.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep complete and accurate records of its complaint stages and associated processes, such as repair logs, inspection reports and other communication to and from its residents.
This expectation is set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which states that landlords must conduct investigations in “an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made.”
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), which is available on our website, further highlights the need for effective record keeping with recommendations which include:
1. A minimum standard for key data recording, to ensure quality records are available to support the wider business processes.
2. Ensuring that databases can be easily interrogated, and that data can be extracted when needed.
Following a request for evidence from the Ombudsman, the landlord has provided very limited records of its interactions with the resident or internally. Crucially, there are significant pieces of documentary evidence that have not been produced, such as inspection reports, completed works or repairs records and correspondence with its contractors.
This has greatly limited the ability of the Ombudsman and the landlord itself to assess and monitor this case and is a significant failing by the landlord. Our Service has used other documentary evidence, including the accounts and records provided by the resident to decide this case. Specifically, this Service is unable to determine:
1. The findings made at any of the inspections carried out by the landlord.
2. The scope of works undertaken at any of the appointments.
3. The specific days when works or appointments were completed in some cases.
4. Whether follow up works were booked or completed in some cases, such as the works to rectify dangerous electrics in the property.
Given these difficulties and the obligations placed on the landlord by the Ombudsman’s Code, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Leaks, damp and mould and windows

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties, which includes the roof, walls, windows, doors and external fixtures. Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
Under Section 9A and 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to ensure that their homes are fit for human habitation and are free from ‘prescribed hazards’ which includes damp.
Additionally, Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 defines category 1 and 2 ‘hazards’ under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould can be a prescribed hazard under this legislation if it is in a state that may cause harm to health. Landlords must take appropriate action to remove these hazards or make them safe for residents.
The landlord’s repairs policy and the resident’s lease confirm this legal obligation. The repairs policy gives four timescales for completing responsive repairs, depending on their severity:
1. Urgent emergency repairs – should be attended to within 2 hours and fixed within 24 hours.
2. Emergency repairs – Should be fixed within one working day.
3. Routine (R1) repairs – Should be fixed within seven days
4. Routine (R2) repairs – Should be fixed within 28 working days.
The Ombudsman’s zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould is set out in our spotlight report ‘Damp and Mould: It’s not a lifestyle’ which is available on our website.
Within the scope of this investigation, the evidence shows that the resident raised concerns about repairs in November 2021. Given the repair requests involved both leaks and damp and mould, the landlord should have responded to this as an emergency repair.
In response to the resident’s contact, the evidence shows that the landlord took the following action:
1. completed a site inspection on 30 March 2022 which found damp in the bedroom and living room and raised works to inspect the roof for leaks.
2. raised a works order on 14 July 2022 to investigate rotten windows. The notes indicate that a full replacement was recommended due to the cold in the winter months. This task was shown as complete on 25 July 2022.
3. attended on 26 October 2022 to make safe electrics in the kitchen which had been damaged by a water leak from the ceiling. The notes indicate the electrics were made safe but given a C2 (potentially dangerous) code as the RCD was not tripping correctly. There are no further records that indicate this was rectified and the resident has stated that this remains unresolved at the time of investigation.
4. booked an inspection on 13 February 2023, which was subsequently cancelled by the resident and rebooked for 8 March 2023. There are no records to indicate whether this inspection went ahead or what the findings were.
5. made attempts to complete a mould wash on 12 April 2023 and 30 May 2023 however these were shown as ‘no access’ appointments and the works order was closed on 30 May 2023.
6. completed a further inspection on 1 March 2023 which noted that a “full mould treatment” was required.
7. completed a mould treatment on 17 April 2023.
8. works to replace the windows in the property were marked as completed on 19 December 2023. The notes indicate that a window was replaced and all that remained outstanding was a “small amount of plastering”.
9. erected scaffolding in May or June 2023 and removed this on or around 30 June 2023. The records do not indicate the precise dates when the scaffolding was erected or give any details of work completed in this period. The resident asserted that no works were completed in this time. The resident stated that these works were not completed to a satisfactory standard.
10. booked a mould treatment on 22 July 2023, which was later cancelled. No reason is given in the landlord’s notes for this cancellation.
11. completed a mould washdown on 23 August 2023.
12. raised a new works order on 18 October 2023 to resolve leaks in the roof, which were affecting the resident’s bedroom, kitchen and living room. This works order was showing as uncomplete at the time of investigation.
The evidence shows that there was a substantial delay between the resident’s initial reports and the landlord undertaking a survey in March 2022. The resident also stated that previous surveys had been undertaken and that this and subsequent surveys were duplicating assessments already undertaken.
The evidence suggests that the windows in the property were replaced on or around the 19 December 2023. The resident stated that these works were completed in January 2024. The resident also said that damage was caused to the wall and render during these works which remains unrepaired at the time of investigation, bar one part which the landlord has repaired.
The other works remain uncompleted at the time of this investigation. Specifically, a new works order was raised on 19 October 2023 for issues that had been reported for almost two years previously. In all cases, these are significant delays beyond the landlord’s repair policy timescales.
Additionally, the evidence shows that the landlord has taken no substantive action to address the leaks or associated damp and mould since the issue was reported, beyond periodic mould washes. The landlord repeatedly undertook inspections of the property, however failed to effectively manage its contractors to affect any lasting works or repairs.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have used the surveys effectively to identify the causes of the leaks, damp and mould and undertake structural repairs to resolve this. The landlord could also have mitigated the damage caused with dehumidifiers or other measures, however there is no evidence that this was considered or undertaken.
The resident stated that the landlord had identified that the damp was not related to the roof, but instead was a structural issue. The landlord has provided no evidence related to this. The resident said that he is still awaiting contact from the landlord’s contractor to progress works related to this at the time of investigation.
Furthermore, there was evidence throughout the process of the resident chasing the landlord on at least three occasions for updates to the works that had been promised. The landlord also made commitments within its complaint responses to complete and progress works, which were not kept. The Ombudsman expects landlords to have sufficient systems and processes to manage repairs to completion without intervention from the resident. This was a failure which caused additional time and trouble for the resident in pursuing the matter to completion.
Concerningly, the landlord’s records indicate that it attended to make safe electrics within the property, following a leak, which left the RCD in a C2 (potentially dangerous) condition. The landlord’s repair logs do not show that this fault was ever rectified. The landlord must now take urgent action to assess the electrics and ensure that they are safe for the resident and the property.
It is noted that the landlord’s complaint responses included an apology for the delays in completing works and made an offer of £470 compensation at stage one. Whilst these offers of redress go some way to repairing the landlord and tenant relationship, they were insufficient given the level of delay and the lack of action taken to address the substantive repairs.
Overall, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaks, damp and mould and window repairs because:
1. The landlord had a legal obligation to make timely and effective repairs when put on notice by a resident, however all of the issues raised apart from the window repairs, remain outstanding at the time of investigation.
2. The landlord did not meet the actions and deadlines it gave within its complaint responses causing further distress and inconvenience to the resident and more damage to the landlord and resident relationship.
3. The landlord undertook repeated surveys of the same issues, showing an underlying inability to manage the repairs process to completion with its contractors. This also caused the resident additional time and trouble in facilitating access.
4. The landlord did not address electrical safety issues in the property, which arose from the leak reported by the resident.
5. The landlord did not take substantive action to address damp and mould in the property over an extended period, beyond mould washes, nor did it provide mitigation, such as dehumidifiers to reduce the damage caused. This left the resident in a potentially hazardous property for an extended period of time, for which the existing remedy offered is insufficient.
The landlord is ordered to undertake the outstanding repairs and make safe the dangerous electrics in the property. In addition, the landlord must now pay the resident £1000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the significant period of time which has elapsed since the resident reported these issues and the lack of a lasting and effective repair, including at the time of this investigation. If the landlord has paid the £470 compensation offered in its stage 1 complaint response, it can deduct this from the total compensation awarded.

Complaint handling

The landlord operated a two-stage complaint policy at the time of this complaint. It committed to responding to complaints within the following timescales:
1. Stage 1 (local resolution) complaints – 20 working days.
2. Stage 2 (final review) complaints – 25 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out a number of key principles that landlords are required to adhere to in the management of complaints. This includes the following:
1. Landlords must operate a two-stage process without any additional or informal stages as this causes confusion and delay.
2. Landlords must respond to complaints within the timescales in the Code. This is 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is to avoid extending the complaint process or delaying access to the Ombudsman.
3. Landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure unless it has valid reasons to do so. Landlords must clearly set out these reasons.
4. Landlords must not extend the timescales for responding to complaint by more than 10 working days. In cases of extensions this must be clearly explained to the resident and the Ombudsman’s details must be provided.
It is noted that the landlord’s complaint timescales were not compliant with the Code at the time this complaint was raised, however the landlord’s current procedure does now adhere to the Code timescales.
The resident raised his stage 1 complaint on 18 November 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 November 2022 to advise that “a specific process […] is needed to be followed before a formal complaint can be raised”. Specifically, the landlord said that it would need to chase its contractors for a response before a complaint could be raised.
The Code specifies that landlords must not refuse to escalate complaints without valid reasons. The Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord had grounds to refuse to accept the resident’s initial complaint on the grounds that it needed to chase its contractor. Landlords are responsible for managing their contractors on an ongoing basis and this should not delay a resident from being able to raise or escalate a complaint. In assessing this case, the Ombudsman has taken the resident’s initial complaint as the date from which the landlord should have responded.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 81 working days after receipt of the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was issued 32 working days after escalation. Both responses were issued in excess of the landlord’s policy timescales and the Code requirements. It is noted that the landlord apologised for this delay, however this was a service failure.
More generally, the Ombudsman expects landlords to use their complaints processes to put things right for residents, learn from the complaints process and use it to develop the wider organisation. In this case, given that many of the resident’s complaint remain outstanding at the time of investigation, it is evident that the landlord has not used the complaint process effectively to put things right for the resident or implement wider learning. This was a service failure.
Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord delayed in accepting the resident’s stage 1 complaint, exceeded its policy timescales in issuing complaint responses and has not used its complaint process to learn and effect a suitable and lasting remedy in this case. On these bases, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
1. Maladministration in the landlord landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
  1. Leaks into the property from the roof.
  2. Damp and mould in the property.
  3. Rotten and damaged windows.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Arrange for a senior officer at Director level to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1200 compensation. The £470 offered by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response can be deducted from this if it has already been paid. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £1000 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the leaks, damp and mould in the property, which remain outstanding at the time of this investigation.
  2. £200 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
3. Provide the resident with details of its insurer and how to make a claim for any damages caused to his personal property from the leaks and associated damp and mould.
4. Provide this Service and the resident with a schedule of works showing when all outstanding works will be completed in a period not exceeding 12 weeks from the date of this determination.
5. Attend the resident’s property and undertake an electrical safety inspection. Where any ongoing faults are identified, these must be rectified within the landlord’s policy timescales for emergency repairs.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping processes related to repair records to ensure that it keeps complete and accurate details of works completed including reports, photographs and other similar evidence to assist it, and the Ombudsman with assessing ongoing cases.