London Borough of Lambeth (202308620)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308620

Lambeth Council

14 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of multiple repairs required to the property.
2. Concerns about the electrics and electrical safety.
3. Concerns about the layout of the kitchen.
4. Concerns about Asbestos
5. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local council. The resident is vulnerable and a survivor of domestic abuse. She moved to her home from a women’s refuge. She has declared mental health issues. The landlord said she informed it of this during a vulnerability check in December 2022.
On 11 September 2022, the resident approached her local Councillor (Cllr) who wrote to the landlord. Her email highlighted several repair issues and a problematic layout of the kitchen. This included a lack of space for kitchen appliances and pipework obstructing those spaces. She also mentioned plaster coming off of the walls, damp in the bathroom and a sealed electrical unit.
The landlord said it treated the member’s enquiry as a stage 1 complaint. It issued its response on 28 September 2022. It said the resident had had a brand-new kitchen fitted. A surveyor’s inspection on 21 July 2022 had noted the fridge was large, and she had placed it in the space for the cooker and not the allocated space. It said she needed to make best use of the limited space, including adjusting the size of her appliances. It advised it had placed an order to remove some ducting so that the fridge could move closer to the wall.
The resident submitted a complaint on 13 July 2023. She said she had made calls and sent emails about repairs for 3 months following the start of her tenancy, which the landlord did not respond to. She outlined 7 repair issues that were still outstanding, including the kitchen layout, asbestos and mould in the bathroom. She was using a portable electric hob as there was no room for a cooker. The landlord had not issued her with an electrical safety certificate. She said the condition of the property and delay in addressing the repairs had affected her physical and mental health.
Following our intervention the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 26 July 2023. It said the intercom was not repairable and needed upgrading. The void surveyor and repairs manager completed a joint visit to address all repairs issues the resident had raised. During this visit it had refused her request for a new kitchen. It carried out an electrical safety test on 26 January 2022. Following remedial works, a minor works certificate was issued on 31 January 2022. It raised works for the kitchen so that she could use an oven, but she had refused access because she wanted a new kitchen.
The landlord also said it had detected asbestos while fitting an extractor fan. It implemented the correct protocol for the removal and completed the work. It had no reports of damp and mould or a broken door lock in the bathroom, but had recently decorated it, which it said would have addressed any damp or mould. The bathroom heater was an extractor fan recently fitted, and it had no report from her of it malfunctioning. It asked the resident to provide specifics about a claim for disrepair. It was aware interior decorating was outstanding to the hall and kitchen, but she had requested it postpone the work until the kitchen work were complete. It concluded that the time it was taking to complete her repairs and respond to her complaints depended on her granting access.
The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this Service. She disputed some claims it had made in its response and did not feel she should have to live with the conditions in her flat or the time it was taking to address them.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said in her complaint to this Service, that the stress caused by the amount of repairs needed to her property and the landlord’s delay in addressing them, had affected her physical and mental health.
The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about the affect the repairs had on her physical and mental health is better dealt with via the court. However, the Ombudsman will consider any general distress and inconvenience the situation caused the resident.

Repairs

The landlord has statutory repairing obligations for its rented properties, which are set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The act requires landlords to repair and maintain the structure, fixtures, and fittings of all its tenanted homes. It must also complete repairs in a reasonable time.
The landlord has a responsive repairs policy, which sets out its priorities and timescales for attending to repairs. These range from 2 hours for an urgent emergency up to 90 days for planned repairs. Its policy also commits to identifying and addressing potential disrepair issues during its void maintenance process. This includes steps to consider ventilation and thermal works and ensure the property is fit for habitation before it is re-let.
The landlord’s lettable standard sets out the standard for the repair work that it will carry out in its properties before a resident moves in. These include:
1. All window and door elements, including the frames and boards, will be in a sound and useable condition with all necessary attachments in working order.
2. All walls and ceilings will be in a suitable condition for redecoration.
3. All fixtures and fittings including cupboards, built-in wardrobes and kitchen units will be in good working order.
4. Central heating systems will be checked and in full working order.
5. All electrical re-wiring will conform to the current NICEIC safety requirements.
The resident’s tenancy started on 4 April 2022. On 13 April 2022, she reported the thermostat to the heater in the bathroom was not working, her handset for the door intercom was broken and several electrical sockets throughout the property were not working. On 14 April 2022 she reported an uncontainable leak from her toilet. On 25 April 2022 she reported that the radiators were not getting hot. On 5 May 2022 she reported the boiler leaking. In June 2022 she reported plaster coming off the living room wall as she decorated. A problem with the sash windows, not opening, a winder and a cord missing.
This report will assess the electrical repairs (reported above) under the section relating to ‘electrics and electrical safety’.
The landlord replaced the resident’s toilet as part of the void works. While it is unfortunate a leak occurred shortly after fitting, it was not leaking prior to handover. The repairs team responded to the leak the same day within its emergency policy response time. However, it did not actually secure the toilet pan to the floor until 6 March 2023, almost a year later. This was not reasonable and questioned whether it robustly checks the void work when completed.
Despite the landlord undertaking plastering work to the living room walls during the void period, it had to complete further replastering in June 2022 before the resident could decorate. She reported several faulty windows. A mechanism had snapped in one, almost catching her fingers, and key parts for operating the sash windows were missing. It has specific commitments in the letting standard on the condition of walls and windows which it had not met and this questions again the quality of its checking.
The leaking boiler became a recurring issue. It was causing reduced pressure in the system and affecting the functionality of the heating and hot water. The earlier report of the radiators not heating sufficiently would be connected to this. Three months into the resident’s tenancy, the landlord approved a new boiler (18 July 2022).
It was unfortunate a leak occurred a short time after letting, if it was not leaking at handover there was no service failure. However, that it could not be repaired and had to be replaced within 3 months suggests it was older. It was likely following the void inspection that the landlord became aware the boiler was nearing its life expectancy. As its repairs policy commitments to identify and address potential disrepair in its void maintenance process, it might have been more appropriate to have replaced it prior to letting. This could have prevented the significant inconvenience it caused her in those 3 months.
On 7 June 2022 the resident reported raw sewage backing up into her bath every time she used the shower. She requested a CCTV survey and a deeper clearing of the soil stack, The landlord raised an order for a CCTV survey but had no record of completing this or any findings. The resident made further reports of the drains blocked and bubbling up on 30 June, 14 July, 8 August and 15 September 2022. Again, the landlord raised orders to clear them, but the only record of it completing work was jetting the drain on 12 July 2022.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service. This is not only so that it can provide evidence to the Ombudsman when requested. It is because this assists the landlord in its understanding of the condition of a property and enables outstanding works to be monitored and the provision of accurate information to residents. Records also serve as evidence in any external processes which the resident and landlord may engage in.
The landlord’s visit to the property on 23 January 2023 found that it had not resolved the resident’s problem with back surging in her bath. Its investigation concluded that the contractor had not received the order it had raised on 15 September 2022. It attributed this to a system error. This was unfortunate and outside of its control. However, it should have a process in place that picks up incomplete job orders when the response time has passed. Not having a successful backup system created an unnecessary delay of 4 months to address the issue. This would have been extremely inconvenient and frustrating for the resident.
On realising this error, the landlord said it had arranged for the contractor to attend urgently. It has the ability under code R1 to send contractors to complete work within 3-7 working days. It attended to carry out works on 6 March 2023. This was a 31 working day response, which even exceeded its routine repair response time (28 days). Considering the delay the resident had already experienced, it did not address the issue with the level of urgency it required.
The remedial works involved addressing incorrectly installed drainage. The repairs history shows there have been no further reports of the problem since the correction was completed on 6 March 2023. The drainage issue had taken almost a year to resolve. This fault should have been identified and fixed much sooner, and the delay is a service failure.
The resident complained about an outstanding broken door lock and damp and mould around the toilet. The landlord responded that it had no record of her reporting the issues. While it is fair for it to comment that it had no record, the complaint puts the landlord on notice of the issues. It would have therefore been appropriate for it to clarify how this would be dealt with. It considers broken internal door locks as tenant responsibility. If it had broken since letting, it should have explained this to her. It should also have either raised a damp inspection or advised her how to do so. Doing nothing to resolve these matters was a service failure.
Living with things continuously breaking down, reporting them, and providing access would be detrimental to most residents. Having spent the previous months recovering from the trauma of domestic abuse and living in a women’s refuge, the detriment to the resident is likely to have been even greater. She said the conditions in the flat resulted in constant stress, which caused her problems with both her physical and mental health.
It is not unusual for a repair issue to crop up after letting, that was not apparent during the void process. However, the number of repairs reported by the resident within the first 2 to 3 months of her tenancy starting was excessive for a property that had just undergone works for re-letting. This was indicative that the landlord was not achieving its policy commitments to identify potential required repairs during its void maintenance process and remedy these before it re-lets a property.
The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s repairs was poor, leading us to a finding of maladministration. Besides the considerable number, there were avoidable delays in responding to repairs and repeat attendances for the same works. Some matters would have been better dealt with prior to letting. Because of poor record keeping, it could not always demonstrate how it responded to issues. The detriment to the resident who is vulnerable was significant. It did not recognise its failings through its complaint handling process and as such it did not apologise, put things right or consider any redress.

The electrics and electrical safety

The landlord’s lettable standard commits to carry out an electrical test when a property becomes empty to ensure that it is safe. It will carry out any necessary works the report identifies. Once it completes the work, it will get another certificate that says that the electrics are NICEIC safe.
It is not a legal requirement for social landlords to inspect and test electrics in their properties. There is, however, a requirement for them to make the homes safe and fit to live in and to fix electrical faults once identified. To routinely carry out electrical inspections in their properties is appropriate and considered good practice.
The landlord’s electrical inspection of 26 January 2022 completed for the void works gave a rating of ‘unsatisfactory’. This indicates that dangerous (code C1) and/or potentially dangerous (code C2) conditions had been identified. The landlord stated in its response of 26 July 2022 that “following remedial works, a minor works certificate was completed on 31 January 2022.” It said it attached a copy of the electrical safety certificate with its response. It was not clear what certificate it provided. It is also not clear whether it evidenced that the property’s electrics met safety standards following works, as its lettings policy requires. Landlords usually issue the resident with a satisfactory NICEIC certificate following works and prior to letting. Had it done so, she might have felt reassured.
Several broken sockets and the thermostat not connecting to the electric heater in the bathroom, was further evidence that it may not have tested and checked the electrics appropriately while it was unoccupied. There were no records showing that it attended to the faulty sockets. It was not clear if this is because it failed to repair them or did not update its records.
The resident reported the faulty thermostat in her bathroom 3 times before the landlord attended on 9 Jun 2022. This was a response time of 38 working days, which exceeded its routine repairs response time of 28 working days. It fitted a new thermostat, which was appropriate. The following day, she reported it was not connecting to the heater. It attended on 14 June 2022 and reconnected the thermostat to the heater. On 17 June 2022, she reported that the thermostat was not working again. No further attendances were recorded for this issue, which was not reasonable.
The resident’s complaint on 12 July 2023, said the heater thermostat stayed on constantly unless switched off at the mains. The landlord’s response said, “this was a newly installed extractor fan, which she had not reported as malfunctioning”. The installation of the extractor fan was a separate repair issue. Its response showed it had either not listened to the resident, or it had not investigated the complaint properly. As a result, it did not progress the repair, which caused her further detriment and understandably added to her frustration.
In August 2022, the resident questioned the landlord about an industrial cable running through her flat. This was preventing the front door opening fully and had no obvious purpose. Her neighbours did not have similar cabling in their properties. The landlord had this checked and tested and later carried out further electrical work to remove it. Once removed, the work entailed full redecoration of the hallway. This would have been inconvenient for the resident and was something that it could easily have addressed prior to letting.
Within 3 months of the final stage response, the gas company attended the resident’s property in October 2023, following activation of her Co2 alarm. She said it capped off her gas supply and raised concerns about the safety of the electrics. She reported this to the landlord. Its email response 24 October 2023 said, “the electrician’s assessment has indicated that the electrics are considered safe”. But to ensure her peace of mind, it would seek a second opinion. It agreed to contact her when it received the assessment. This was appropriate action and suggested it was taking her concerns and her safety seriously.
In response, the resident complained about its consistent refusal to send her an appropriate electrical safety report. The landlord said it was working to get the official report as quickly as possible, but reiterated “the installation had been reported as safe”. It said in the absence of a report from the UK Power Network or the British gas, it could not investigate and would not be taking any further action. This was confusing and completely contradicted its commitment earlier that day to arrange for a second opinion and obtain the official report.
A follow up on the resident’s complaint, 4 January 2024, showed the council’s complaints team was chasing the landlord for its electrical safety test and certificate. It said records revealed it had agreed to schedule an appointment with the resident on 27 November 2023 and despite chasing on 12 December 2023, it had received no evidence it had done so. This suggests that 20 months since her tenancy started, it had still not provided the resident with a satisfactory electrical safety certificate as its lettings standard requires.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it could not repair the resident’s intercom. Its electrical engineers had advised on 19 April 2022 that the system for the whole block needed to be upgraded. Replacement takes longer as it has to get estimates and get them approved before work can begin. This was unfortunate, but was outside of its control.
The engineer reported when attending that the main doors had been ‘propped’ open. Not having use of the intercom system would be inconvenient for most residents, but for the resident the impact was greater. She told this Service that she felt unsafe. For most survivors of domestic abuse, security becomes paramount. The communal door being open and not knowing who was trying to contact her on the intercom would have been very distressing. In circumstances such as this, it is appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge concerns and keep residents informed on the processes and expected timescales. It was not evident that it had done so in this case. There was also no sign that it had given any consideration to the resident’s vulnerability, and the effect this might have on her, which was a service failing.
Overall, the landlord could not demonstrate that it fully adhered to its letting standard, or it repairs policy in its handling of the electrics in the resident’s property. There were avoidable delays and contractor recalls. It failed to communicate sufficiently and did not recognise its service failings. In not doing so, it did not apologise, put things right, or consider any redress. We have therefore, made a finding of maladministration, in its response to her concerns about her electrics and electrical safety.

Kitchen layout

The resident said when she viewed the property, the landlord told her that the previous tenant had installed the kitchen. The enquiry from her Cllr said she had seen a video of the viewing confirming this.
The tenancy agreement allows residents to make improvements to their homes, which would include kitchens. It is at the landlord’s discretion whether it keeps the installation or replaces it with standard fittings when they vacate. In deciding, it is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors. If it keeps the improvements, it takes on responsibility to repair and maintain them. Records showed it kept all existing units but replaced the work surfaces.
The resident was unhappy with the kitchen. She told the landlord the position of 1 base unit prevented her from fully opening the kitchen door. Once she installed her fridge, there was no room for a cooker. As a result, she was using a portable hotplate. The sink was in the wrong position. The bowl did not align with where you could stand to wash up, resulting in neck and shoulder pain. Gaps around the work surface meant water penetrated behind the units. Spaces for appliances were an unusual size and contained boxing in and redundant pipework, which prevented appliances from fitting against the walls. She asked if it could replace the kitchen.
Landlords are not required to adjust kitchens to fit around residents’ appliances. A resident must get appliances that fit the provided space in the kitchen. It is the residents’ responsibility to check the size of the spaces provided and get an appliance that meets the size. However, any space allocated should be sized for common UK standard appliances. They should be free from obstructions that prevent an appliance sitting appropriately in the space. Landlords usually adopt this approach when they design/fit their own kitchens. However, it must ensure it follows the same approach when deciding whether it is appropriate to keep a tenant-installed kitchen. It did not provide an assessment of its decision for the kitchen to remain, so we cannot confirm it had done so.
The landlord raised a technical inspection of the kitchen on 16 June 2022. Its surveyor’s report on 7 July 2022 stated, “the kitchen was of poor design and was impractical for her to use it effectively”. It agreed its repairs contractors would make reasonable adjustments so that she could use it and have cooking facilities. This included orders to investigate the removal of redundant pipework. There was a note that it would recharge this to the voids budget. This was indicative that it should have addressed these issues prior to letting.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord was not providing a new kitchen, following a visit on 21 July 2022. She said hers was “resident installed” and not approved or checked by the landlord. She said the planner had previously told her she was getting a new kitchen.
The landlord’s records showed it had completed work in the kitchen during the void process, which means it had completed some checks. There were, however, no records of it agreeing to a new kitchen. If it considered the kitchen functional, it was not obliged to do so. There were no records of it sending a kitchen planner. Its earlier records show that it always intended to adjust the existing kitchen and not renew.
Contractors said they attended on the 19 August 2022 to supply and fit an additional base unit and new worktop. It reported that the resident had refused access because they were not supplying a new kitchen. Her tenancy agreement requires that she give the landlord access to her home to carry out repairs. Failing to provide access may be considered a breach of tenancy conditions. A landlord can apply for a court order to end a resident’s tenancy for a breach of tenancy conditions. The resident, however, has disputed this claim, and maintains she was at work on that date.
Following a visit to her property, the resident’s Cllr wrote to the landlord advising that she did not consider the layout of the kitchen acceptable. Its email response to the Cllr on 28 September 2022, was concerning. It said it considered her use of the kitchen to be the problem, and apart from moving some ducting did not intend to take further action. This was not its position previously and it was not evident it had told the resident prior to this. Additionally, the respondent’s opinions were based on her having had a ‘brand new’ kitchen fitted, which she had not.
An inspection of the resident’s property was arranged with the Cllr for 11 October 2022. The landlord’s position was that from looking at photographs, the resident needed to get an under the counter fridge and freezer. She needed to place them where the washing machine was. The washing machine needed to move to the right-hand side of the sink and put the cooker in the space she has been using for the fridge freezer. It said that it had nothing to repair and would not be restructuring the kitchen to accommodate the resident’s white goods.
The landlord is within its rights, taking its limited resources into account to make informed decisions whether to carry out works. However, it was concerning that its decision from viewing photographs contradicted and rejected the opinion of its qualified surveyor who had attended the property twice. Its position also contradicted its email to the Cllr on 28 September 2022, which stated it was moving ducting to better accommodate her fridge. It made little sense that she needed to change the fridge when it had ordered work to accommodate her existing fridge.
The resident’s upset and frustration were understandable. The landlord’s earlier inspections agreed the kitchen was not functional, and indicated it was going to take measures to improve it. While it was within its right to change its decision, it had raised her expectations unnecessarily and not explained why.
The landlord failed to address the issue with the kitchen sink. An adjoining work surface obscures at least a quarter of the bowl. Older photographs show it is not in its original location. In its current location, it should have either a left-hand drainer or be positioned much further to the right. It was not appropriate that the resident has to twist or lean to fully use the sink. She said this has been causing her considerable discomfort.
In an email to the contractor on the 11 May 2023, the landlord asked it to ‘supply only’ a 600mm drawer line base unit, 2 work tops and 3 plinths. It gave instructions to renew a gate valve to the cold-water mains and cap off a redundant 32mm waste in the sink base unit. It also requested they supply and fit an extractor fan and redecorate the kitchen.
It was not clear why or when the landlord changed its position on the issue. The resident said her partner offered to do some of the work to the kitchen to progress things. She said out of desperation, and a need to have proper cooking facilities she agreed. It was not reasonable that this work would only progress if the resident’s partner did it. However, it is difficult for us to comment whether its actions were appropriate or not as it is not clear how this decision came about.
The resident requested the works be completed in a specific order on the 15 May 2023. She asked that the landlord complete the pipework and any electrical work first. This would be followed by the additional unit and then the work surfaces. This was because she did not have the room to store the new worktops in her flat. She also asked for a smaller sink to improve its functionality. It did not respond to her request, and nothing appears to have progressed since then, which was not reasonable.
The resident has told this Service she has since changed her mind about her partner doing the work because she thinks it is the landlord’s responsibility. While it is the landlord’s responsibility to carry out necessary work to its rented properties, if a resident negotiates doing it themselves, it is reasonable for it to agree. We could not determine whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable. This was because there were insufficient records on the circumstances under which this change of events around the kitchen adjustments occurred.
The landlord’s complaint response 26 July 2023 refers only to the resident refusing access on 19 August 2022 for the job raised. It does not reference or explain any of the considerable events that happened since then. This was not appropriate and did not demonstrate that it had undertaken a full and thorough investigation of this issue.
Overall, its handling of the kitchen works has been poor. It was unclear that it had undertaken an adequate assessment of the kitchen. There were conflicting views on its functionality and several changes in its position on the matter. Poor record keeping caused confusion over who installed it. It provided incorrect and contradictory information to the resident and failed to explain its decisions. Its complaint investigation was lacking. It did not recognise its failings and as a result, it did not apologise, offer to put things right or consider any redress. As a result, we have made a finding of maladministration in its handling of the kitchen.

Asbestos

The landlord provided a copy of its asbestos identification survey completed in May 2013. This indicated where asbestos might be in the property, its condition, and risk for future maintenance and improvement work.
The landlord completed a further asbestos inspection prior to letting in January 2022. This confirmed the asbestos present was low risk and no remedial works were required.
The landlord ordered a new extractor fan for the bathroom on 26 January 2023. As the contractor started work to remove the existing extractor fan, it detected an asbestos sleeve. The resident, however, said it was her partner who identified the asbestos. It stopped works and raised an order on 17 February 2023 for a specialist asbestos contractor to attend. It removed the asbestos sleeve from the vent hole under controlled conditions. Following this, it carried out an air reassurance test to ensure asbestos particles were not present. Its actions were appropriate and in accordance with asbestos management protocols.

Associated Complaint

From December 2020, all member landlords were required to complete an annual self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Our duty to monitor against it became statutory in April 2024, so landlords are now obliged by law to follow its requirements.
The Code at the time recommended a 2-stage process for enabling landlords to resolve resident’s complaints quickly and ensuring access to our service was not delayed. Additionally, 2-stages ensures the resident can request further consideration of their complaint if they are not satisfied with the landlord’s first decision.
The landlord had an ‘early resolution’ pre-complaint stage in its policy. This stage was designed to resolve complaints straight away and did not receive a written response. This effectively created a 3-stage complaint process, which was not Code compliant. The landlord’s website confirms it has removed this pre-stage from its housing complaints process. As such, we are satisfied that complaints moving forward will not be unnecessarily delayed or overcomplicated.
The landlord said it considered a previous members enquiry, logged 9 months earlier on 28 September 2022 to be the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The Code requires a stage 1 response to confirm the following:
1. the complaint stage.
2. the complaint definition.
3. the decision on the complaint.
4. the reasons for any decisions made.
5. the details of any remedy offered to put things right.
6. details of any outstanding actions.
7. details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
The landlord’s response on 28 September 2022 was a standard email to update the Cllr. It did not contain any of the required information set out in the Code for a stage 1 response. It was therefore not Code compliant.
The landlord did not have a specified time period in which to escalate a complaint in its complaint policy. While it was not a requirement of the Code at the time, it is a requirement now for landlords to include a timescale in their policy. This is to ensure complaints are resolved quickly. A gap of 9 months between the complaints was extensive and should have been logged as a new complaint rather than an escalation. If the landlord had logged it as a formal complaint, the resident would have had the opportunity to have her complaint reviewed as the Code requires.
The landlord provided an email dated 1 September 2022, with the subject header “Complaint regarding your property”. The responder claims to have fully investigated complaint matters relating to the kitchen, cables and hot water. We know this was not its stage 1 response, as this was the member’s enquiry. An ‘early resolution’ response in accordance with its policy does not receive a written reply. This email was not appropriate, it did not align with any part of its complaint handling policy and was confusing for the resident.
Overall, the landlord could not demonstrate that it fully adhered to its complaint handling policy, or that its processes were Code compliant. We have therefore made a finding of Service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s
1. Reports of repairs.
2. Concerns about her electrics and electrical safety.
3. Concerns about the layout of the kitchen
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord provides evidence to this Service of compliance with the orders below. These are that it:
1. Provides the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Inspects the resident’s property to ensure all the repair issues reported have been resolved. Provides her with a plan of action for any that it has not resolved.
3. Re-inspects the kitchen to:
  1. ensure all spaces provided for appliances are free from obstruction and of an appropriate size for common UK appliances.
  2. agree an appropriate position for the kitchen sink.
  3. agree or revisit any necessary adjustments the landlord can make to improve the functionality of the kitchen.
4. Issues the resident with a NICEIC electrical safety certificate if it has not already done so.
5. Pays the resident the sum of £1,400 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £500 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in its handling of her repairs.
  2. £400 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in its handling of her electrics and electrical safety.
  3. £400 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in its handling of her concerns about the kitchen.
  4. £100 for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint.