Lewes District Council (202315233)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315233

Lewes District 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak.
2. Move to a new property.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

At the time of these events, the resident was the assured tenant of the property which was owned by the landlord. The property is a family home where the resident lived with her 3 children. The landlord is a local authority which has a duty to house her. The resident has reported having mental health issues.
On 31 October 2022, in the early morning, the resident contacted the landlord’s out-of-hours repairs team to report that sewage was leaking uncontrollably from the upstairs bathroom. Contractors attended and the landlord arranged for the family to move into a local hotel. It carried out works and arranged for the resident to inspect the property prior to moving back on 3 November 2022.
The resident said she was not prepared to move back in as the property had not been cleaned properly. She returned to the hotel but there was no reservation and, unable to pay for a room herself, she spent the night in her car with her family. She later approached her MP who paid a deposit for her to move into a hotel on 6 November 2022. The landlord later arranged for the family to stay in a self-catering apartment.
The resident complained formally to the landlord on 9 November 2022. She said it had failed to help her during the emergency and had failed to clean the property adequately before asking her to return. She also said the contractor had lost or damaged some of her belongings during the works.
The landlord completed further works to the property in late November 2022 and the resident moved back in on 25 November 2022.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 19 January 2023 it apologised for the problems the resident had suffered, but said it had now solved them. It said its contractor had agreed to pay her £200 for any damage at the property.
The landlord offered the resident a new property (the new property) in February 2022. However, due to required repairs and vandalism, she was unable to move in until 5 May 2023.
On 10 May 2023 the resident asked to escalate her previous complaint to stage 2. She said there had been delay moving into the new property and there had been problems with it when she moved in. For example, she said there was broken glass there and she had had no gas or back door key when she first moved in.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 16 June 2023 it apologised for leaving some broken glass at the new property and for not leaving the back door key. It said it had not met expected standards and offered an additional £50 compensation, making a total of £250.
In the resident’s referral to us she raised all the issues from the stage 1 and 2 responses. She said she wanted the landlord to stick to its commitments and do what it said it would do at the time it said it would do it.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of a leak

The landlord’s tenant’s handbook says it will deal with emergency repairs, including problems with toilets and sewage, within 24 hours. On 30 October 2022 the landlord’s contractor visited the property to clear drains. It arranged to return the next day to continue its work. Unfortunately, at 5am the next morning, sewage from the next-door property caused a sewage leak at the property. It is not clear whether these problems were related.
In any event, on receiving the report of a sewage leak the landlord contacted its contractor and asked it to attend as soon as possible. The resident complained that the landlord’s phone handler told her she would have to wait for the contractor who was already coming to arrive. We have no evidence of what was said in that phone call. However, it is clear that the landlord then made efforts to ensure the contractor attended as soon as possible and well within 24 hours. This was good service in line with its tenant’s handbook commitment.
Our “Decant expectations” document sets out what we expect landlords to do when they have to find temporary accommodation for their tenants. It says that landlords must:
1. Where they identify a need for temporary housing, take action immediately.
2. Keep clear records of contacts with the resident.
3. Arrange an inspection before return to ensure the property is ready.
4. Tell residents about any snagging issues and provide a clear plan of action with timelines for resolution.
On discovering that the problem with the drains would take days to resolve, and because the property required cleaning, the landlord arranged to accommodate the resident and her family in a local hotel until 3 November 2022. It gave her 2 options and allowed her to choose, which was good practice. The resident believed that her housing officer was doing nothing to help her. However, the evidence shows it made efforts to arrange the hotel, repairs, and a thorough clean of the property. At this stage, the landlord was taking reasonable steps to support the resident.
There were no cooking facilities at the hotel and the resident said she could not afford to feed the family from restaurants and takeaways. Therefore, the landlord gave her a food allowance of £60 per day while she was there (£15 for each member of the family). It paid this for 5 days. This was, again, an appropriate response to the resident’s circumstances.
When the resident returned to view the property on 3 November 2022 she said it was not clean enough to move back into. She said there was faeces on the skirting in several places. We have not seen supporting evidence of the property’s condition and so cannot comment conclusively on this. We accept, however, that the resident was unhappy with it and reported this to the landlord.
The resident refused to stay at the property and returned to the hotel. There was no booking for her and she could not afford to pay for a room. In her complaint of 9 November 2022 she said she slept in her car with her children that night, and the landlord did not deny this was the case.
In cases where a resident has made a claim to a landlord, and the landlord does not dispute it, we may accept this as fact. It is clear that the landlord believed the property was ready for the family to move back in to on 3 November 2022. However, we have seen no evidence that it carried out a thorough inspection, as it should have done, or confirmed to the resident that the property was ready for her return. Depending on its findings, the landlord could then have either refused to extend the hotel stay or agreed to extend the stay in temporary accommodation and made the necessary arrangements. We have seen no evidence that it did either and this was a failure.
The landlord continued to correspond with the resident. She told it on 4 November 2022 that she had gone to stay with a family member and was not in need of housing. However, on 6 November 2022, she tried to contact the landlord again to arrange emergency accommodation. The landlord was not immediately available, which was understandable given that it was a Sunday.
The resident contacted her MP who paid the deposit for a family room and gave her a useful number to contact a senior member of staff. This officer contacted her later and agreed to provide temporary accommodation in a hotel until 9 November 2022. It later decided to carry out further works at the property and arranged for her to stay in a flat until 25 November 2022.
The landlord did not pay the resident a food allowance after she moved into the flat as she had cooking facilities. However, as the flat was some way from her home and the children’s schools, it did pay her a petrol allowance of £420 which exceeded its standard rate. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
On returning to the property the resident said she was happy with the works but contractors had damaged or lost a radiator cover and some vases. The landlord investigated this and could find no conclusive evidence that this was the case. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said its contractor had offered £200 for the lost or damaged items. We cannot say if this was a reasonable offer or not. If the resident wishes to pursue that issue, it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide her with details for its insurers.
This offer did not recognise any of the other identified failings by the landlord or contractor, or the distress and inconvenience caused by those failures. This would have been appropriate, and this omission amounts to service failure. The landlord had some responsibility for the resident and her family sleeping in her car on 3 November 2022. Its “compensation schedule” says it will make payments of between £100 and £300 for distress caused by its failures. We have, therefore, ordered a payment of £150 because these failures caused the resident and her family distress.

Resident’s move to a new property

The resident had wanted to move house for some time and was applying for houses through the landlord’s housing allocation system. The system divided applicants for housing into several bands with Band A having the highest priority. Before the incident on 31 October 2022, the resident had been in Band B, and shortly after the incident she was moved to Band A. She successfully applied for the new property in early 2023 but did not move in until 5 May 2023.
The resident complained to the landlord on 10 May 2023 about the delay in moving and other problems with the new property. She said:
1. She had to wait 20 weeks to move in. During the interim, she had received no communications from the landlord.
2. She moved in on 5 May 2023 and had no hot water or heating until 9 May 2023.
3. There was broken glass when she moved in. The property was not ready to move into.
4. The landlord provided the wrong back door key which meant she had to have someone attend at midnight to change the locks.
In its complaint response of 16 June 2023 the landlord:
1. Gave a detailed account of the events between February 2023 and 9 May 2023 in relation to repairs to the new property. This included unforeseen issues with a window replacement and vandalism to other windows, which had delayed the move-in date. It said it had updated her as required during this period.
2. Confirmed it had uncapped the gas on 9 May 2023 and all had been working at that time.
3. Said it had cleaned up most of the broken glass after the vandalism in March and April 2023 but must have missed some, for which it apologised.
4. Explained that, due to the vandalism, it had left secure boarding over the windows until the resident moved in. This meant it may have failed to put the key in place as it should have done. It apologised but said it had remedied its error swiftly.
5. Offered the resident £50 compensation for its failures.
While we understand the resident’s frustration, the landlord was right to say that the delays in moving her to the new property were not its fault. The vandalism, understandably, set back the move-in date while the landlord sourced and installed new windows. We have also seen evidence that it informed her about the delays during this period. However, the landlord knew the resident was due to move in on 5 May 2023, so it should not have allowed 4 days to pass before uncapping the gas. She has 3 children and needed gas for heating and hot water. The landlord’s failure to address this earlier was poor service on its part.
The landlord’s compensation schedule says awards for distress should be between £100 and £300. Awards for “time and trouble” should not exceed £100. The schedule says it will pay £5 per day for a failure to fix a gas boiler. The landlord’s failure to uncap the gas caused the resident distress, and inconvenienced her and her children without gas for several days. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £100 for this failure and the distress and inconvenience it caused.
The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to clean up all the glass after the vandalism as it should have done. We have seen photographs which suggest the amount of glass left was minimal. Nonetheless, with small children present, this should not have occurred. The landlord also recognised it had failed to leave the back door key as it should have done, but failed to address the resident’s claim to have employed a locksmith to replace the lock at night. This was an inappropriate complaint response. If it accepted that it should have left the key, it should have addressed her claim to have had to replace the lock.
The landlord’s offer of £50 for its failure to clean the glass and leave the backdoor key was, in the circumstances, too low. We have increased it to £100 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and risk posed. This is in line with our remedies guidance for instances of low-level maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days. In this case, it took 48 working days to provide it. This was a clear and serious breach of its complaints policy. The 7-week delay in providing the stage 1 response was sufficient on its own to justify a finding of maladministration.
Paragraph 6.8 of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says “Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as anew complaint.”
The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that it should have opened a fresh complaint to look at the entirely separate issues the resident had raised in her complaint about its handling of her move into a new property in May 2023. It is, therefore, unclear why it chose to treat the fresh complaints as an escalation request and this was a complaint handling failure. It did not, however, cause the resident any great inconvenience as she came to us with both her complaints shortly thereafter.
The landlord should have treated the response as a fresh stage 1 complaint and provided a response within 10 days. Instead, by treating it as a stage 2 complaint, according to its policy, it had 20 days to reply. It missed this target and provided its complaint response after 26 working days. This was a further failing. As a result, an order is made for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its complaint handling failings and pay the resident £100 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. Move to a new property.
  2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Sent a letter of apology to the resident for the additional failures identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident £450 (including the £50 already offered) as follows:
  1. £150 for its failures in relation to her reports of a leak at the property.
  2. £200 for its failures in relation to her move to the new property (inclusive of the £50 already offered).
  3. £100 for its failures in complaint handling.
3. Offered, on being shown adequate evidence, to reimburse her for the reasonable costs of employing a locksmith on 5 May 2023.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to:
1. Remind complaint handling staff of the wording of paragraph 6.8 of the Code.
2. Ensure that its contractor pays the resident the £200 compensation for broken items if it has not already done so or invite her to claim on its insurance for any items damaged during the works of November 2022.