Lambeth Council (202005612)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005612

Lambeth Council

2 February 2023

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s:

 

1. Handling of repairs, subsequent to the resident’s disrepair claim, related to:

 

i. The roof and guttering.

 

ii. The windows.

 

b. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould to her property.

 

Background and summary of events

 

Background

 

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The property is a two-bedroom,

Victorian conversion, flat with ground floor access. The lease commenced on 22

May 1995. It is understood that the resident moved into the property in 2018 with

her two adult sons.

 

3. An inspection was carried out at the property on 30 October 2019 as part of

Disrepair Claim made by the resident. The expert report prepared following the

inspection included a schedule of disrepair which proposed a number of

remedies including:

 

a. To inspect all gutter and rainwater pipe connections, undertake remedial

works as found necessary and leave in a watertight manner.

 

b. To re-glaze the lower central sash window to the living room and decorate

with oil based primer, undercoat and gloss.

 

c. To supply and fit a replacement, left hand side lower sash, window to living

room, primed prior to fitting and decorated on completion of works.

 

d. Replace all box frames and sashes complete to the rear first floor bedroom,

prime prior to fitting and decorate on completion of works. Make good internal

wall plaster and decorations as necessary and seal the abutments of the

frames using a polysulphide sealant.

 

e. Bonding plaster incorrectly applied to the external wall was drawing moisture

through the structure. The report recommended to hack off all wet wall plaster

to kitchen and reinstate using a dense waterproof render. On completion of

works and when dry, seal all new plaster with one mist coat and two full coats

of water based emulsion.

 

f. Strip off all existing roof covering to the rear elevation bay and install a new

three-layer high-performance elastomeric torch-on felt and install a code 5

lead cover flashing at the abutment of the main building and bay.

 

4. The report said that the landlord should be given two weeks to instruct and

mobilise contractors with a further four weeks for the works to be undertaken and

completed including drying times and decorations.

 

5. On 9 December 2019, the landlord raised a works order to:

 

a. Inspect all gutter and rainwater pipe connections, undertake remedial works

as found necessary and leave in a watertight manner.

 

b. To off all existing roof covering to the rear elevation bay and install a new

three-layer high-performance elastomeric torch-on felt and install a code 5

lead cover flashing at the abutment.

 

c. The works were given a target date of 20 April 2020.

 

6. On 10 December 2019, the landlord’s legal services wrote to resident regarding

her disrepair claim. The landlord’s legal services advised that:

 

a. Works would commence but that some items identified by the surveyor did not fall within the landlord’s repairing obligations. These included damage to the internal plasterwork and cracked glass to one of the window panes.

 

b. Repairs to the windows would be dealt with under Section 20.

 

7. On 15 January 2020, the landlord issued an Offer Under Part 36 CPR letter to the

resident, in which it offered the resident £12,000.00 in full and final settlement

general damages and special damages in relation to the expert report of October

2019. The landlord noted that the expert report only identified two windows that

needed replacing and the remainder could be repaired. Under the Section 20

procedure, it was renewing all windows. The landlord said that the correct

procedure was for the Section 20 notice to continue and that it compensate the

resident in respect of disrepair.

 

8. This report covers two formal complaints made by the resident subsequent to her

disrepair claim. The first of these relates to the resident’s reports of outstanding

works to the roof, guttering and windows, which was referred to the landlord by

this service on 27 October 2020 and for which the landlord issued its final

response on 18 June 2021. The second relates to the resident’s reports of damp

and mould in her property, which the resident raised with the landlord on 10

February 2021 and for which the landlord issued its final response on 18 June 2021.

 

Summary of events

 

9. Following contact from the resident, on 27 October 2020 this service wrote to the

landlord to ask that it respond to the resident’s complaint about outstanding

repairs subsequent to the inspection carried out at her property on 30 October

2019 as part of her Disrepair Claim. The landlord was advised that the resident

had told this service that she had made a formal complaint but had not received

its response.

 

10. The resident contacted this service again on 8 December 2020 advising that:

 

a. The repairs to the guttering and the replacement of the roof were outstanding.

 

b. The landlord had decided that all windows needed replacing and served a

Section 20 notice. The resident said that damage caused by the replacement

windows was unacceptable and at a meeting with the window contractor it

was made clear that it was the landlord’s responsibility to make good after the

installation. The landlord had given her two options, for the best finish she

would have to remove her radiators or the landlord would do its best with the

radiators in place.

 

11. On 10 February 2021, the resident logged a further formal complaint with the

landlord referring to ongoing and unresolved damp and mould issues in her

property.

 

12. On 19 February 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response to the

resident’s complaint about outstanding repairs. The landlord said that:

 

a. It was waiting for the job to the main roof to be authorised. The renewal of the whole roof and render repairs were currently in the middle of a Section 20

process. Until the works for the new roof were authorised it could not address

the rear and the bay gutter.

 

b. Following the installation of the UPVC windows, in March 2020, its contractor had agreed that this work was not completed to a good standard and so additional making good was required, which the contractor would complete with the removal of the resident’s radiators.

 

13. On 4 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say that it had been a

while since the windows had been installed and to ask if the landlord had dates

for removing the radiators and making good the walls. The landlord responded

the same day to say that it would not be removing the radiators and to ask that

the resident arrange for them to be removed on 16 March 2021 for the work to

commence on 17 March 2021. The resident said that in order to complete the

works she was prepared to pay privately for the radiators to be removed but that

she would expect to be reimbursed upon completion.

 

14. On 9 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say that she was not

satisfied with the landlord response of 19 February 2021. The resident said the

response did not resolve her complaint and asked that her complaint be

escalated.

 

1. The resident said that her observations regarding the window Section 20 were

ignored, she had incorrectly been accused of saying she wanted all her

windows replaced and that the disrepair was to replace two bay windows,

which she said would therefore reduce her bill for the windows considerably.

 

b. The resident also said that the landlord had said its contractor would make

good, following the replacement of the windows, once she had removed the

radiators. The resident said that she had agreed to this but would be seeking

recompense.

 

15. The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint about

damp and mould issues in her property, on 13 April 2021.The resident contacted the landlord the same day to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response stating that she did not agree with the landlord’s analysis and that it had failed to adequately investigate the matter. The resident explained that in the course of remodeling the kitchen, a rotten structural post had been discovered which they wished to be compensated for as the rot was likely caused by the prolonged leaks.

 

16. On 10 May 2021, this service wrote to the landlord to advise that the resident had been attempting to escalate her complaint about outstanding repairs to stage two, that we had likewise emailed the landlord on 16 and 29 April 2021 but the

resident had received no response.

 

17. The landlord issued its final response on 18 June 2021, following the resident’s

escalation request of 9 March 2021:

 

a. The landlord said that the resident would need to refer her concerns about

being charged for the windows, and about whether it had followed the correct

Section 20 procedure, to the First Tier Tribunal.

 

2. The landlord said that it had complied fully with the expert report, noting that it

was responsible for external repairs and/or structural works only and that, as a leaseholder, internal works would fall under the resident’s responsibility or she may be able to approach her insurers.

 

c. With regarding to the walls in living room and kitchen, the landlord said that

the expert report identified incorrect plaster on the internal wall which again

would be the leaseholder’s responsibility.

 

3. With regards to making good after the Section 20 window works, the landlord

asked the resident to provide photographs of the damage. The landlord suggested that the resident may want to approach her insurers as this may likely be covered under contractor’s liability.

 

e. A responsive repairs surveyor had inspected the property on the 16

September 2020 and tested the external and internal kitchen and lounge wall

for dampness. The landlord said that it was advised that the walls were not

damp, there were signs of a previous leak because the wall had old water

stains and the wallpaper was slightly blistered.

 

18. On 22 June 2021, the resident emailed this service to say that:

 

a. She has been waiting for a year to have a new roof. The roof replacement had been cancelled three times, the last of which had been the previous day, 21 June 2021 and that she had had scaffolding all-round her building since

March 2020.

 

b. She was living in a mess as she was told to empty out her loft in January 2021 and as a result had items stored all over her flat.

 

c. The guttering was damaged and the pointing was in a terrible state disrepair.

 

d. The guttering had allowed the water to overflow, which was the cause of the problem with the plaster. If water had not penetrated her walls the plaster

would be dry.

 

e. She had to wait until March 2021 before the landlord accepted responsibility to make good following the window replacement.

 

f. The resident also said that the damaged walls meant that she could not

decorate or put up curtains and it was all very stressful.

 

g. She also stated that she had raised the issue of the rotten structural post with the responsive repairs team in September 2020 and had requested compensation for this. The responsive repairs team responded to say they would “speak to a manager” about this, but no further response was given by them.

 

Matters that occurred following the landlord’s final response.

 

19. In an email to this service on 3 September 2021, the resident said that a new roof had been discussed in May 2020, following which the landlord had issued three

section 20s. January 2021, which was cancelled due, she understood, to wrong

pricing by the contractor. May 2021, which was cancelled after several weeks as

the costs had increased by approximately 49.7%. July 2021, a new section 20

was issued as the landlord had appointed new contractors. The resident said that

she was still waiting for a start date.

 

20. An internal landlord email of 6 September 2021 confirms that the Section 20

observation period had ended for the roof renewal and that the order had been

authorised by management.

 

21. A further internal landlord email on 1 October 2021, confirmed that the roofing

contractor would start work on 11 October 2021, weather permitting.

 

Assessment and findings

 

Relevant agreements, policies and procedures

 

22. Under the terms of the lease the landlord is responsible for the repair and

maintenance of all structural parts of the premises, including the roof, main

timbers, joists and window frames. The lease obliges the leaseholder to pay a

proportion of related costs incurred by the landlord in respect of this

responsibility.

 

23. The lease obliges the leaseholder to repair and maintain, the glass in the

windows but not the frames, the ceilings but not the joists or beams which the

ceilings are attached, non-structural walls and partitions, the plastered covering

and plaster work, tiling and other surfaces of floors, ceilings and interior walls.

Under the terms of the lease the leaseholder is also responsible for radiators and

other things installed for the purpose of supplying central heating.

 

24. Both the landlord and the leaseholders obligations are confirmed in the landlord’s

Repairs Policy.

 

Roof and guttering

 

25. On 9 December 2019, and following the advice given in the disrepair inspection

report in October 2019, the landlord initially raised a job to strip and replace the

roof covering to the rear elevation of the property. The target for this work to be

completed was noted by the landlord as being 20 April 2020.

 

26. Prior to those works going ahead the landlord decided to replace the whole roof.

This went beyond the scope of the works recommended as part of the resident’s

disrepair claim and so, given the likely costs of the works, it was appropriate for

the landlord to engage in a Section 20 consultation with residents. This service

has not been provided with the landlord’ rationale behind its decision to replace

the whole roof nor have we had sight of copies of its Section 20 notices.

However, in correspondence with this service on 3 September 2021, the resident

confirmed that the roof replacement had been discussed in May 2020 following

which the landlord issued three Section 20 notices, the first of which was issued

in January 2021.

 

27. Given that the landlord had decided upon replacing the entire roof by May 2020,

it is unclear why it then took over eight months to issue the first of its three

section 20 Notices in January 2021. It is acknowledged that at that time, whilst

the Covid19 lockdown may have been easing, its impact on both the landlord and

its contractors may have increased the time taken to prepare for the Section 20.

However, I am not satisfied that this alone is sufficient to justify such a long delay.

 

28. It is also of concern that, given the length of time the landlord had to prepare for

this consultation that the pricing from the contractor had not been checked and,

as a result, there was a further delay of four months for this to be corrected and a

second Section 20 issued.

 

29. The third section 20 was then issued in July 2021. Given that the landlord had

appointed new contractors, two months was not an unreasonable time to the

landlord to take to issue the third section 20 notice.

 

30. The third, and final, section 20 consultation period ended on or around 6

September 2021, at which point the works were authorised and it is understood

that the works then commenced on 11 October 2021.

 

31. Whilst the works commenced promptly after the Section 20 ended, it was not

reasonable for it to take some 17 months for the landlord to reach that point. This

is particularly so given that the need for the guttering to be inspected, and

remedial works to be undertaken to make watertight, had been recommended as

early as October 2019, and that the landlord had confirmed that the guttering

could not be addressed until the new roof had been authorised.

Window replacement and making good

 

32. As with the roof works, the works the landlord decided to undertake following the

inspection for the resident’s disrepair claim went beyond the works

recommended, the landlord deciding to replace all the windows.

 

33. As with the roof it was therefore appropriate for the landlord to carry out a section

20 consultation with residents before the works could go ahead. The resident was

advised of this in the landlord’s Offer Under Part 36 CPR letter of 15 January

2020. The resident expressed concerns about the section 20 process and the

amount she was liable to pay towards the replacement windows. However, as the

landlord explained in its final response of 18 June 2021, this would be a matter

for the First Tier Tribunal, and not this service, to consider.

 

34. It is understood that following the section 20 consultation the windows were

replaced in March 2020.

 

35. In its stage one response, on 19 February 2021, the landlord acknowledged that

the installation of the windows had not been done to a good standard and that

additional making good was required.

 

36. The landlord also said that in order for its contractors to make good the resident

would need to arrange the removal of her radiators.

 

37. Whilst the general maintenance and repair of radiators fall within the resident’s

responsibilities under the lease, given that the making good was the direct result

of poor workmanship by its contractors, it was not reasonable for the landlord to

expect the resident to incur the cost of having the radiators removed for that

making good to go ahead.

 

38. As such it was reasonable for the resident to request that the landlord reimburse

her for the cost she incurred doing so. The evidence would suggest that the

landlord did not agree to the resident’s request and so an order has been made

for it to reimburse her for that cost on production of an appropriate invoice.

 

Damp and Mould

 

39. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 February 2021 regarding

unresolved issues of damp and mould at her property.

 

40. The actions taken by the landlord (to have the property inspected by the responsive repairs team) was an appropriate step for it to take to ascertain the cause and extent of the issue, and whether there were any works that were needed for which it would be responsible. However, it would have been good practice for the landlord to respond to the resident’s request for further assessment (which she made via the responsive repairs team); as is implied in their response; to ascertain if the rotten structural post was likely caused by the previous issues, and whether an offer of compensation for this would be appropriate. It is unfortunate that the responsive repairs team did not follow-up with the resident as promised, and going forward the landlord should ensure that where a response has been promised or implied, it ensures this is done in good time.

 

41. The results of the landlord’s inspection diagnosed the mould as being caused by

A defective hopper pipe and incorrect plaster being used. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to address the damp and mould herself, given that under the terms of her lease she would be responsible for any internal repairs to her property.

42. However, as the resident had raised the issue of the rotten structural post (which was not discovered until they remodeled their kitchen in November 2020) and was informed that the responsive repairs team would “speak to a manager” about whether it would be appropriate to reimburse the resident for the cost of the post, it would be appropriate for the landlord to conduct an further assessment on the basis the post may not fall into the category of ‘internal works’, which the resident would be responsible for repairing. As such, it is likely appropriate for the landlord to assess whether the rotten post is likely to have been caused by the previous issues in the property, and also whether it would be appropriate to reimburse them for the cost of replacing the post. 

Determination (decision)

 

43. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there

was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the

roof and guttering.

 

44. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there

was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the

resident’s windows.

 

45. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there

was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the

resident’s report of damp and mould to her property.

 

Reasons

 

46. Having made the decision to replace the entire roof to the resident’s property,

there were unreasonable delays in the landlord progressing the Section 20

consultation and commencing the works. The 17 month delay also meant that the

required works to the guttering, agreed as part of the resident’s disrepair claim,

were also unreasonably delayed.

 

47. Whilst the windows were initially replaced in a reasonable amount of time, the

works were not completed to the required standard and as a result remedial

works were required. In order to complete the required remedial works it was

necessary for the radiators in the resident’s property to be removed. Given that

the radiators needed to be removed to remedy the poor standard of work carried

out by the landlord’s contractor, it was not reasonable for the landlord to expect

the resident to both arrange and pay for their removal and subsequent

replacement.

48. The Ombudsman understands that the resident may disagree with the landlord’s conclusions regarding the damp and mould in their property. However, it acted reasonably when having the property inspected and relying on the comments of appropriately qualified staff when reaching its conclusions. Likewise, the Ombudsman would not challenge the inspectors’ comments as we are not experts on the matter. Our decisions are based on documentary evidence, and we do not complete inspections ourselves.

49. As the issue with the rotten post was not discovered until the resident remodeled their kitchen, it would be unreasonable to expect any inspection undertaken by the landlord to have uncovered this previously. As such, I find that the landlord’s actions in commissioning an inspection were appropriate and proportionate in terms of its responsibility to investigate the resident’s concerns. However, as there is a possibility that this issue was caused by the prolonged water ingress into the property which itself was made worse by the delays to completing the repairs, it would be appropriate to give the landlord the opportunity to assess this and decide if an offer of compensation would be appropriate.

 

Orders and recommendations

 

Orders

50.That within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to :

a. Apologise and pay the resident £400 for the unreasonable delay in it

completing the Section 20 process and commencing the works to the

resident’s roof.

 

b. On production of an appropriate invoice, the landlord is to reimburse the

resident for costs she incurred removing her radiators so that the landlord

could arrange for remedial works to be completed following the replacement

of her windows.

 

c. Confirm to this service that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendations

51. It is recommend that should the resident provide the landlord with the photographic evidence showing the rotten beams, it then consider whether it would be appropriate to reimburse the resident for the cost associated with the removal of the structural post.