Lambeth Council (202002809)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002809

Lambeth Council

09 August 2022

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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and repairs required to fencing and windows at the property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of a vacant, neighbouring property.
   3. The landlord’s decision to replace a communal lock at the property, including its response to his request for reimbursement for cutting an additional set of keys.
   4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of his service charge since June 2018.
   5. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a 1-bedroom, ground floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder. Part of the complaint relates to the condition of the flat above, which is vacant and owned by the landlord.
3. In June 2018, the resident contacted the landlord to report concerns about the condition of the property above, which had been damaged by a fire. He also reported repairs required to fencing and damp within his property, associated with external re-rendering. A formal complaint was logged and responded to in 2018, although the Ombudsman has not had sight of the complaint correspondence from that time.
4. The resident’s property was inspected in May 2019. The surveyor provided actions for further investigation of the windows and drains and suggested that the property above should be refurbished. In November 2019, the resident complained to the landlord that the communal door lock at the property had been changed without notice and requested reimbursement for the cost of cutting a new set of keys.
5. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 8 February 2020 about outstanding repairs to the fence, window and damp, and the landlord’s failure to complete the refurbishment of the flat above. The resident reminded the landlord of its repairs obligations under the terms of his lease and its own policies and procedures. He also repeated his complaint about the lock change. The resident stated that the disrepair was affecting the value of his property and asked the landlord to complete all outstanding works within 3 months. He requested £5000 compensation and reimbursement of his service charge since June 2018.
6. The landlord partially upheld the complaint, acknowledging delays in completing repairs and complaint handling failures. It also committed to arrange an inspection once restrictions imposed as a result of COVID-19 were lifted. The landlord offered £320 compensation in recognition of the delays, £100 compensation to reflect its poor complaints handling and £20 compensation for the cost of cutting a new key.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

7. As part of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s poor service, he has requested reimbursement of his service charge payments since June 2018 when the issues were first reported. The landlord refused this request, stating that the charges had been legitimately levied in accordance with the terms of the lease. The landlord provided advice about a separate process for disputing elements of the service charge.
8. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints concerning the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of rent and service charge increase. The resident’s request for reimbursement of his service charge is therefore outside the jurisdiction of this Service, as the Ombudsman cannot provide a binding determination on whether the charges were reasonably incurred or recharged to the resident. Should the resident wish to pursue this aspect of his complaint, he may wish to consider making an application to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT). Further information about the FTT can be found on its website here:

https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tribunal-property-chamber

Landlord’s handling of repairs and reports of damp

9. Clauses 3(g) and (h) of the resident’s lease provide that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the property’s window frames, the structure and exterior of the building, communal fencing, and shared drains. The landlord’s Homeowners’ Guide confirms that it is responsible for keeping the building, including the windows, in good repair and for maintaining communal services and common areas. If a resident believes the landlord has breached the terms of the lease, they can write to the landlord who will consider the resident’s concerns and provide a response. The landlord’s Repairs Manual states that it will respond to some routine repairs within 7 working days and others within 28 working days. It aims to complete planned works within 90 days.
10. The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous repairs records to this investigation, raising concerns about its record keeping. This has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate the action it took in response to the resident’s concerns.
11. The information provided shows that on 5 June 2018 the resident made the landlord aware of repairs required to the communal fencing and notified it of damp within his property. On 27 February 2019, the landlord emailed the resident to arrange an inspection of the damp, a timber window and the communal fence. The inspection took place on 15 May 2019 and the surveyor provided a list of actions for further investigation. The landlord has not explained why it took almost 8 months to take action to address the repairs from when the issues were first reported, which is far in excess the 28 working day timeframe for responding to requests for routine repairs. This delay was unacceptable.
12. In November 2019, the resident emailed the landlord stating that he had been unable to find a convenient time for the window company to attend and had heard nothing since he asked for the job to be referred to the landlord’s contractor. The landlord had also failed to clear and inspect the drains, which it was thought may be causing the damp. The landlord failed to progress the actions from the inspection in May 2019 within a reasonable time, although it is noted that access issues prevented the window inspection from going ahead and there is no evidence that the resident chased the landlord within that 6-month period.
13. On 18 December 2019, the landlord asked the relevant team for an update on works orders raised in May 2019 to renew the fencing and window and to investigate the drains. There is no evidence that a response was received, that the landlord followed-up on this enquiry, or that it provided an update to the resident. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to resolve the resident’s concerns at this stage.
14. In both the stage 1 complaint response of 22 April 2020 and the final response of 18 January 2021, the landlord committed to arrange an inspection of the outstanding repairs once COVID-19 restrictions permitted. This did not happen, despite the easing of lockdown restrictions between June and September 2020, and in April 2021 following the final complaint response of 18 January 2021. Although it is appreciated that the landlord may have been working through a backlog of repairs, it should have provided updates to the resident during this period.
15. It is unreasonable that the landlord failed to take the promised action within a reasonable time, or to update the resident about the status of the repairs. It is also noted that the landlord’s complaint responses failed to respond to his allegation that it had breached the terms of the lease. In accordance with its policies and procedures, this should have been investigated and a written response provided to the resident. If a separate process exists for making complaints about breach of the lease, the resident should have been informed of this as part of the complaint response.
16. Although the landlord made an offer of compensation to the resident to reflect the delay in addressing the repairs, and committed to arrange an inspection, the resident informed this Service on 7 December 2021 that no progress had been made. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay an additional sum of compensation, to reflect the lack of action following the final complaint response, and to arrange an inspection of any outstanding repairs. Following said inspection, it is expected that the landlord will confirm to the resident when any identified works will be completed and that these repairs will proceed within a reasonable timescale.

Landlord’s response to resident’s concerns about neighbouring property

17. According to the information provided to this investigation, the resident first raised concerns about the condition of the property above on 5 June 2018. The evidence suggests this property was vacant since it was fire damaged in 2017. Following the landlord’s inspection in May 2019, the surveyor recommended that the property be completely refurbished. On 18 December 2019, the landlord informed the resident that works to the property above should begin within 3 – 4 weeks but this did not happen and no further update was provided to the resident.
18. The resident states that the landlord’s failure to address the disrepair to the property above has prevented him from letting or selling his property. He has provided an email from his estate agent, dated 11 September 2020, with feedback from viewings, indicating that people viewing the property had been put off by the smashed windows and boarding in the property above. The resident also states that glass shards from the window continue to fall into his garden. The landlord has informed this Service that the property above was already in a state of disrepair following the fire at the time the resident purchased his property. This is irrelevant, as it does not alter the landlord’s repairs obligations under the lease and its policies and procedures. In addition, the landlord had confirmed to the resident that works would be carried out to the above property and, having confirmed this, it would be expected to follow through on what it had agreed to do.
19. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that works to the property above had been delayed but maintained that its condition did not affect the resident’s property. It did not provide a response to his complaint about loose glass. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the property above was poor. The property above forms part of the resident’s building, and as the owner of the property the landlord is obliged under the lease to keep it in a good state of repair.
20. Whilst the Ombudsman cannot provide a binding determination as to whether the landlord has breached the lease terms, no explanation has been provided for the failure to complete the repairs to the property above within a reasonable timeframe. Whilst the Ombudsman accepts that there may have been delays in completing the internal refurbishment there is, on the evidence, no reason why it could not have repaired the windows of the property within a reasonable timeframe, following the resident’s complaint of 8 February 2020. The email from the estate agent suggests that window repairs had still not been completed by 11 September 2020, although the resident acknowledged that the windows had been fixed in his email of 12 July 2021. In the absence of repairs records, the Ombudsman cannot determine when the works were completed.
21. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this aspect of the complaint, which it failed to acknowledge and address during the complaints process. The Ombudsman makes an award of compensation, in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance, to reflect the time and trouble the resident took to pursue his complaint. The Ombudsman also orders the landlord to provide a written update to this Service, and to the resident, about the status of the refurbishment and when this is expected to be completed.

Replacement of communal lock and reimbursement of key costs

22. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 November 2019 to report that the communal lock had been changed without notice. He requested reimbursement of the money he had paid to cut a new set of keys and asked the landlord to log a formal complaint. He sent a follow up email on 25 November 2019 attaching a receipt, although during the complaints process the landlord stated that it was unable to access this document.
23. The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s request for reimbursement at the time of his complaint in November 2019, or to investigate why it had failed to give notice of the lock change. In response to the formal complaint of 8 February 2020, it requested evidence of the cost of the keys, which the resident had already provided. This caused added frustration and made the resident feel that the landlord had not properly investigated his complaint.
24. In the final complaint response, the landlord apologised to the resident and offered £20 compensation to reimburse him for the cost of cutting the key. This was a reasonable response as the landlord was unable to view the evidence and given the length of time the complaint had been outstanding. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s apology and the offer of compensation made satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Complaints handling

25. At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 3-stage complaints process, including an early resolution stage, a local resolution stage and a review stage. Where a complaint could not be resolved straightaway, it would be logged at the local resolution stage and a response provided within 20 working days. The policy did not specify the timeframe for responding to a complaint at the review stage, although the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide a response within a reasonable time.
26. There is no evidence that the landlord logged and responded to a formal complaint about the change of the communal lock, as requested by the resident on 11 November 2019. The resident was forced to re-raise this issue as part of his formal complaint made on 8 February 2020. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the failure to log the complaint when it was first raised.
27. In its stage 2 response the landlord admitted failings in its complaints handling. It identified that there was a delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint of 8 February 2020, causing confusion about the status of the complaint. The Ombudsman agrees with the landlord’s assessment. The landlord failed to contact the resident within 2 days to discuss his concerns, as promised in its acknowledgment email of 8 February 2020 and a local resolution complaint was not logged until 3 March 2020, after the resident chased a response to his initial complaint.
28. A written response was provided on 22 April 2020, meaning the landlord failed to adhere to its 20-working day target timeframe. The landlord’s internal emails evidence that it was investigating the complaint during this period and collating responses from various teams, but it failed to provide an update to the resident to explain the reason for the delay.
29. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 April 2020 to express his dissatisfaction with the response. He received no response from the landlord either confirming that the complaint had been escalated or clarifying whether he wished to proceed to the review stage. The landlord also failed to escalate the complaint following contact from this Service on 29 July 2020, which it acknowledged and apologised for in the final complaint response. A final response was not provided until 18 January 2021, almost a year after the complaint was made.
30. The quality of the complaint response was poor. The stage 1 response did not provide any information about the investigations the landlord had undertaken into the repairs. It failed to acknowledge that the repairs issues had already been reported and to identify the actions from the May 2019 survey that it had failed to follow-up. This further undermined the resident’s faith in the complaints process The complaint responses also contained inaccuracies, such as a statement that the landlord was unaware of the reported damp. The stage 2 complaint response failed to address the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property above and listed repairs order numbers without reference to the jobs they related to, causing additional confusion.
31. The landlord offered £100 compensation in respect of its poor complaints handling but the Ombudsman does not consider this sufficient to reflect the extent of its failings. The Ombudsman therefore makes an additional award of compensation, in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a neighbouring property.
34. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s decision to change the locks at the property.
35. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to his request for reimbursement of his service charge since June 2018 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, in accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme.
36. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

37. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord must confirm to this Service that it has complied with the following Orders to:
    1. Pay the resident £200, in addition to the compensation offered in the final complaint response, in recognition of the additional failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
    2. Pay the resident £200, in addition to the compensation offered in the final complaint response, in recognition of the failings identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a neighbouring property.
    3. Pay the resident £150, in addition to the compensation offered in the final complaint response, in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaints handling.
    4. Write to this Service, and to the resident, confirming the status of the refurbishment works to the property above.
    5. Arrange an inspection of the property and communal areas to assess whether repairs are required to the windows, fencing and damp, and complete any necessary works identified that the landlord is responsible for within 2 months of the date of the inspection.
38. The landlord to arrange an inspection of the property and communal areas within 28 days of this report to assess whether repairs are required to the windows, fencing and damp, and complete any necessary works identified that the landlord is responsible for within 2 months of the date of the inspection.

 Recommendations

39. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its records keeping processes to ensure that full and accurate records are kept of all reports of disrepair and any associated investigations or works. This information should be easily accessible and readily available to deliver up to the Ombudsman for the purpose of complaint investigations.