London Borough of Lambeth (202344164)

Background

1. The resident lived in a one-bedroom flat with her 2 young children. The landlord has mental health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident and she reports her children have skin conditions and she has asthma. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a leak at that property. The resident no longer lives at the property but remains a tenant of the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to a leak.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Response to a leak.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to a leak

4. The landlord:
   1. Responded as an emergency repair but did not order follow on works to stop and trace the leak.
   2. Left the resident and her children living with an ongoing leak.
   3. Took too long to assess if the resident needed to be moved to alternative accommodation.
   4. After the resident moved to temporary accommodation, did not provide repair updates or explain how long the works might take.
   5. Acknowledged repair delays but did not award compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord:
   1. Did not follow our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
   2. Did not show it investigated the issues the resident complained about.

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.

6. The resident reported an uncontrollable leak on 16 July 2023. The landlord followed its repairs policy, responded to the report as an emergency, and visited within 24 hours.
7. The landlord was unable to stop or trace the leak. The repair records say the landlord needed access to a property above the resident’s (the upstairs property). The landlord did not, however, order any follow on works after the visit and there is no evidence it accessed the upstairs property.
8. An internal landlord email sent on 20 July 2023 confirmed the leak was ongoing and the resident was unable to use the kitchen to cook. This suggested the resident had lost use of a ‘key facility’. This should have prompted the landlord to consider whether the resident needed to be moved to alternative accommodation. There is no evidence it carried out such an assessment at this time.
9. On 27 July 2023, the landlord said it had fixed the leak. The resident subsequently confirmed the leak was ongoing and no works had been completed. The evidence suggests the repairs the landlord referred to were at a different property.
10. In her complaint about the handling of the leak, the resident said she was unable to cook and there was dirty water in the property. She said the property was unsafe, and she and her children needed to be moved. The resident told us she was subsequently moved to emergency accommodation after her child slipped in the wastewater.
11. The landlord confirmed the resident was moved to emergency accommodation in July 2023, however, the date of the move is unclear. The landlord has not provided any inspection or assessment reports. Accurate and complete records are essential to allow the landlord to meet its repair obligations. The lack of records is a record keeping failure.
12. The landlord said it concluded the leaks would be complex to resolve and therefore moved the resident to temporary accommodation on 14 August 2023. The landlord has not provided records of this assessment.
13. The landlord followed its decant policy and arranged a move to temporary accommodation because the repairs could not be done in a short timeframe. However, there is no evidence the landlord explained to the resident how long it expected the works to take.
14. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 response. It did not award compensation. The response was the first evidence of communication from the landlord to resident about the property. It did not, however, provide an update on the repairs. Instead, the landlord said it was meeting the resident at the property that day. The landlord has not provided a record of the meeting and there is no evidence it contacted the resident after the meeting.
15. In its stage 2 response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint because of the repair delays. It again did not award compensation. The landlord said the resident had asked to move permanently to the temporary accommodation and it would follow-up her request.
16. The resident contacted us in March 2024, as she said the landlord had not completed repairs or engaged with her reports about her belongings that were damaged by the leak, pests, damp, and mould that had worsened her asthma.
17. The landlord said it agreed the resident’s request to remain permanently in the temporary accommodation in April 2024.
18. In summary, the landlord did not order follow on works to stop and trace the leak. This left the resident and her children living with an ongoing leak while she told it she was unable to cook. The landlord took too long to assess if the resident needed to be moved to alternative accommodation. After the resident moved to temporary accommodation, the landlord did not provide repair updates or explain how long the works might take. This caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty. This, and the fact the landlord acknowledged repair delays but did not award compensation or engage with the resident’s reports of damaged belongings and asthma, means there was maladministration.
19. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £600 compensation for its failings in handling the leak. This is at the top of the compensation band in our remedies guidance for failures by the landlord that adversely affected the resident.
20. We have also recommended the landlord consider refunding the resident for items lost due to the leak, pests, damp, or mould and/or provide her with details to claim for this on its liability insurance. This is because these are better dealt with by the landlord and/or its insurer, as they and the courts have access to legal advice to decide if it is legally liable to pay for these damages in a way that we do not.

21. On 27 July 2023, the resident complained about the landlord’s response to a leak. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was contrary to the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
22. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 10 October 2023. This was 44 working days after the 10-working-day response time required by the Code. The landlord apologised for the delay but did not award compensation.
23. The response did not demonstrate the landlord had investigated the response to the leak. This was contrary to the requirements of the Code.
24. On 3 November 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 10 November 2023 and said it would provide its stage 2 response by 8 December 2023.
25. The landlord did not send the response when it said it would. It did not provide prior notice or explanation for the delay. This was contrary to the requirements of the Code.
26. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 December 2023. This was 13 working days after the 20-working-day response time required by the Code.
27. The resident’s escalation request referred to damp, mould, and pests in the property and her and her children’s health conditions. The resident said she had contacted the landlord separately about damaged belongings. The landlord has not provided customer contact records. The resident did not mention the belongings in her complaint. However, given the scale of the leak, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have considered if compensation and a possible referral to its insurance company was needed.
28. Because of the reasons set-out above we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have therefore ordered it to apologise and pay the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This is within the range of compensation recommended by our remedies guidance for such failures that have adversely affected the resident.

Learning

Emergency leak repairs

29. Landlords should effectively manage follow-on works after they attend an emergency leak repair. When there is an active leak, the landlord must raise orders to trace and stop it. The landlord must act promptly to consider if a move to emergency or temporary accommodation is required. The landlord must document this process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord’s repair records were incomplete. Key information was missing from the evidence provided by the landlord. The landlord did not provide any inspection reports, surveys, or assessments of the conditions in which the resident was living.

Communication

31. The landlord did not keep the resident up to date on works to fix the leak or complete repairs. It did not provide the resident with indicative timelines for the repairs or explain when she might be able to return to the property.

Previous learning order

32. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to review its practices and processes related to damp and mould, repairs, and record keeping. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so we have ordered the landlord to incorporate the learning from this complaint into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202440488. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.