Lambeth Council (202114942)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114942

Lambeth Council

9 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint following a flood at his property.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property. His lease began on 18 July 2017. The property is a flat, on the second floor of a five storey block.
The resident was not residing at his property during the time period covered in this report.
The landlord is a council. For the purposes of this report, the housing directorate of the council is referred to as ‘the landlord’. Any other area of the council is referred to as ‘the local authority’.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s policy in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction by a housing resident or leaseholder. The policy provided a number of examples of complaints, the first of which was, “Someone is dissatisfied with our standard of service or the service provided by one of our contractors”.
The policy described that its purpose was to ensure that:
1. Residents have a clear, simple and accessible method to raise an issue of concern.
2. Staff know how to respond effectively to issues raised by residents.
3. Complaints are dealt with consistently and promptly with residents kept informed throughout the process.
The policy described a three stage complaint process as follows:
1. Early resolution – the complaint is passed straight to an officer who will contact the resident and agree actions and timescales to resolve the issue.
2. Local resolution – the complaint will be acknowledged in writing, and a written response provided within 20 working days. Where more than 20 working days is required, it will be explained to the resident and a new timeframe advised.
3. Review resolution – the complaint will be acknowledged in writing and reviewed at a senior level. A written response will be provided within 20 working days. Where more than 20 working days is required, it will be explained to the resident and a new timeframe advised.

Scope of investigation

The resident is aware that the Ombudsman is unable to make determinations in respect of the handling and outcome of insurance claims. This Service advised the resident of this on 10 March 2022, and signposted him to organisations he may wish to contact for advice regarding those aspects of his complaint.

Summary of events

On 5 May 2021, the landlord’s external service provider (ESP) emailed the resident and advised of a leak at his property that was flooding through to another flat. It stated that the resident urgently needed to arrange a plumber.
On 5 May 2021, the resident replied to the landlord’s ESP email. He said that he was abroad, and could not return due to pandemic travel restrictions. He explained that his daughter had been living at his property until mid-March 2021, when she had joined him overseas. He said that the property had been empty since she had left. The key points of the resident’s email were as follows:
1. He said that he had first found out that there was an issue at his property when his friend had attended it on 3 May 2021, and found that the sink, basin and bath were full of dirty water.
2. He stated that he had been in touch with the landlord’s tenant in the flat below since 4 May 2021.
3. He said that the tenant had advised him that the landlord’s plumbing contractor had attended the block a week earlier to jet blast the water pipes.
4. He stated that the tenant had said that he had been experiencing leaks into his flat since that time, which the tenant had told him he had been trying to resolve with the landlord without success.
5. He stated that he had directly contacted the landlord’s plumbing contractor who had caused the issue, but that they had said that they would not attend his flat as it was a private property.
6. He explained that he had to pay for his own contractor to attend, as well as other costs that he had incurred.
On 18 May 2021, the resident emailed a senior manager of the landlord for whom he had a prior contact. The resident asked the manager who at the landlord he should correspond with, as he was being ignored by the landlord and its ESP. The manager replied and forwarded the resident’s email on internally the next day, and asked that it be investigated and actioned.
On 20 May 2021, the landlord’s customer services team emailed the resident and acknowledged his complaint. It advised that it would aim to send the resident a written response by 17 June 2021. The version of the acknowledgement email provided by the landlord to this Service was in a file type that did not display the date that it was sent, nor the email addresses which it was sent from or to.
On 26 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord’s manager again. The resident also copied his email to the landlord’s complaint address, and other areas of the local authority. The resident said that the manager was the only person at the landlord who was replying to him, and that nobody else was even acknowledging receipt of his emails. He asked the manager what he should do. The manager replied the next day, and said that she had sent a chaser email to the landlord’s complaints team.
On 18 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its ‘local resolution’ complaint response. The landlord’s complaint response acknowledged that its communication regarding repairs progress could have been improved, and said that due to this, it had partly upheld the resident’s complaint. It advised the resident to make a claim for his damaged belongings via his contents insurance. It said that alternatively he could make a liability claim via the landlord, and provided a web link for doing this. It advised the resident of his right to have his complaint reviewed.
On 24 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord’s manager and complaints team, and said that he had still not received a response to the problem he had reported in early May 2021. He explained that he now had his own tenants living in his property, who had told him that his wooden floors were water damaged. He provided a video and photographs as evidence of this. He asked who he should contact to progress his compensation claim.
On 25 June 2021, the landlord’s complaints officer (CO) emailed the resident, and attached the complaint response it had sent on 18 June 2021.
On 25 June 2021, the resident replied to the landlord’s CO email. The key points of the resident’s email were as follows:
1. He stated that he had not received any previous emails or post from the CO, and that the only person who had replied to him to date had been the landlord’s manager.
2. He said that he did not have insurance, and so he would complete the claim form that the CO had sent with the complaint response.
3. He stated his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response, and complained further about the communication issues.
4. He explained that the floor damage in his property had extended from the bathroom into the kitchen and hall.
5. He asked the following questions:
  1. Why had it taken so long for his case to be assigned to someone, and why had he received no acknowledgement when it had been?
  2. Why had it taken nearly two months for the landlord to respond?
  3. Why had the landlord’s ESP not replied to advise who he should contact, if it were not them?
On 25 June 2021, the landlord’s CO replied to the resident’s email, and confirmed the resident’s email address that its ‘local resolution’ complaint response had been sent to. The landlord advised that it had sent an acknowledgement of his complaint on 20 May 2021, and attached a copy. It said that it could not speak on behalf of its ESP. It provided the same web link to make a liability insurance claim that it had included in its complaint response.
On 27 June 2021, the resident replied to the CO. The resident said that the landlord should either address his lack of response from its ESP, or provide him with a means to complain to the ESP directly. He queried what the role of the ESP was, and complained how difficult contacting the landlord had been. He stated that it was only due to his previous work that he had had the landlord’s manager as a contact, and that without that he would have been ignored. He said that the landlord’s complaint response had not addressed these issues, and that he considered its complaint process to be broken. He asked to pursue his complaint further.
On 28 July 2021, the resident emailed the local authority. He stated that the landlord’s contractor had caused a flood at his property at the end of April 2021. He explained that he was living abroad in an opposite time zone, and hence had to correspond via emails that were often ignored. He said that the landlord’s process seemed to be to respond to complaints with an apology, but without actually doing anything. He complained that the landlord’s communications and complaints handling had been appalling.
On 7 August 2021, the resident emailed a local Councillor, and explained again the issues at his property since the end of April 2021. He said that the landlord and local authority had been unresponsive to his emails and requests for help ever since. The key points of the resident’s email to the Councillor were as follows:
1. He said the landlord and senior management from the local authority were ignoring his emails.
2. He described the landlord’s complaint process as “pretty much broken”, and stated that its ESP seemed to be outside of it.
3. He explained that his prior association with the landlord’s manager had been his only means of getting a response, and speculated how it might have been without that.
4. He summarised his complaint as being that the landlord did not properly investigate complaints, and seemed unconcerned by the problems it had caused him.
On 12 August 2021, an email was sent to the resident from the office of the local Councillor. The email advised that a separate email had been sent to the landlord on behalf of the Councillor, that had asked for confirmation that the landlord would be escalating and responding to the resident’s complaint at the ‘review’ stage of its process.
On 18 August 2021, the resident replied to the local Councillor. The resident’s email was copied to a number of people, including the landlord’s manager he had originally contacted. It said that he had sent emails to the ‘complaints’ email address, but that he only ever received automated responses. The remainder of the resident’s email concerned insurance matters.
On 18 August 2021, the landlord’s senior manager replied to the resident. She said that she had been advised that the resident’s complaint had been escalated to the ‘review’ stage of its process. The email gave the name of the officer the resident’s complaint had been allocated to. It said that it had prompted the officer to send the resident a complaint response by copying her into the email.
On 20 September 2021, the landlord sent the resident its ‘review’ complaint response, and acknowledged the communication and complaint handling issues he had raised. The response was from a different officer to the one advised by the landlord’s manager on 18 August 2021. The key points of the landlord’s stage two complaint response were as follows:
1. It stated that its ESP had contacted the resident following a report from a neighbour of a leak from the resident’s property. It explained that the role of the ESP was to log repairs calls for the landlord.
2. It said that the resident had replied to the ESP email, and it acknowledged and apologised for his frustration at not having received a response. It explained that the issues the resident had raised in his reply were not within the remit of the ESP to respond to.
3. It stated that the resident had not submitted his information to the landlord’s dedicated complaint email address, and as such it had not been dealt with as a formal complaint.
4. It said that it was sorry that the resident did not appear to have been aware of the process for submitting a formal complaint, and provided the link to the complaints page of its website.
5. It said that following the resident’s email to the landlord’s manager, the matter had been logged as a formal complaint and an acknowledgement sent to the resident on 20 May 2021.
6. It stated that it had issued its ‘local resolution’ response on 18 June 2021. It said that this had acknowledged that an improved level of communication with regard to the progress of repairs would have been helpful, and partly upheld his complaint.
7. It advised that it could not comment on issues relating to the resident’s insurance claim, as it was outside of the jurisdiction of its complaint process.
8. It confirmed that the resident had completed its complaint process, and referred him to the Local Government Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the completion of the landlord’s complaint process

Over the following months, the resident corresponded with the local authority’s ‘risk and insurance services’ team regarding his insurance claim. The landlord’s liability for the claim was not disputed, but the level of damages payable was.
On 25 January 2022, this Service emailed the resident with an attached copy of the landlord’s final complaint response, and asked the resident to confirm that he had received it when the landlord originally sent it to him on 20 September 2021.
On 26 January 2022, the resident replied to this Service and stated that he had not previously received the landlord’s final complaint response. The resident copied his email to the landlord’s officer who had written its final complaint response. The landlord’s officer replied to the resident the same day noting his comment, and included a screenshot that showed the final response having been sent to the resident’s email address on 20 September 2021.
On 26 January 2022, the resident replied to the landlord’s officer and stated that the screenshot she had provided was not proof that the email was actually sent to him. He noted that the landlord’s manager had advised him on 18 August 2021 that a different officer was handling his complaint. He said that he had emailed that officer several times but had never received a response. He queried why this was the case, and if it was symptomatic of the landlord’s wider issues around responding to emails.
On 28 January 2022, the landlord’s officer replied to the resident and apologised that he had not received a response from the other officer, who she confirmed still worked for the landlord. The landlord offered to look into the matter further if the resident could provide copies of any emails from the officer that he had not received a response to. It explained that as he had approached this Service, and concluded the landlord’s complaint process, his next step was to refer the matter back to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s emailed response to the landlord’s external service provider (ESP) on 5 May 2021 was a clear expression of his dissatisfaction. The landlord’s policy at the time stated that the matter should be passed straight to an officer who could contact the resident and seek a resolution. That the landlord failed to in any way action or respond to the resident’s email was wholly unreasonable, as were its subsequent explanations as to why that had happened. As is assessed below, the landlord continued to fail to comply with its own policy throughout the complaint process, and at a time that would have been very stressful and frustrating to the resident. As such, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.
The landlord’s final complaint response sent to the resident on 20 September 2021 described the role of its ESP as to log repairs calls for the landlord. Therefore, the ESP was acting on behalf of the landlord as a frontline service area. As such, it would have been reasonable to expect that the ESP would be aware of the landlord’s relevant policies, and would forward any issues it was unable to resolve to an appropriate officer, in line with the landlord’s policy. The ESP failed to do this, or even acknowledge receipt of the resident’s email on 5 May 2021. Therefore, the landlord acted unreasonably.
Whilst it should not have been necessary, it was fortunate that the resident had a prior senior management contact at the landlord. The resident emailed the manager on 18 May 2021 to express his dissatisfaction at being ignored by the ESP and landlord. It was appropriate for the manager to forward the resident’s concerns to the landlord’s complaints team on 19 May 2021, and ask that the matter be investigated as a formal complaint. It was also appropriate for the landlord to send an acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint to him on 20 May 2021.
On 26 May 2021, the resident’s email to the landlord’s manger expressed his frustration that he had still not heard from the landlord, almost a month after its contractor had been responsible for the flood at his property. Whilst the contemporaneous records provided showed that the resident had not seen the landlord’s complaint acknowledgement, it was not clear to the Ombudsman why this was the case. Nor was it clear why the same thing occurred again, when the resident also did not see the landlord’s final complaint response (which the landlord said that it had sent to him on 20 September 2021). The landlord provided this Service with copies of both items of correspondence to the resident, which did also appear to be contemporaneous. However, the format that the landlord provided both documents in, did not definitively confirm that they had been sent to the resident.
In reviewing the landlord’s complaint handling, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord acted in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles to Be fair; Put things right; and Learn from outcomes. It was appropriate that the landlord’s first complaint response, sent to the resident on 18 June 2021, explained that his claim for damages would need to be treated as an insurance matter, and provided relevant information and a web link. The landlord’s response did also briefly acknowledge that its communications should have been better. However, it failed to offer any explanation as to why its ESP had not actioned or responded to the resident’s initial complaint, and as such was unreasonable.
It was understandable that the resident queried this omission in his responses to the landlord on 25 and 27 June 2021. He also expressed his wider dissatisfaction with its complaint response and the inaccessibility of its process. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to handle the resident’s email as a complaint escalation request. This would have been in line with the landlord’s policy, that further stated that it would ensure it provided a clear, simple and accessible method to raise complaints. This represented the exact opposite of the experience described by the resident, and the landlord’s failure to escalate his complaint was a further failing.
It was also unreasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident’s further queries regarding the inaction of its ESP by stating that it could not speak on its behalf. As explained above, the ESP was providing frontline services to residents on the landlord’s behalf. The resident’s further comments that the ESP appeared to operate outside of the landlord’s complaint process, were therefore also understandable, and there was little evidence that the landlord acted in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
It was further understandable that the resident questioned whether he would have received any response at all from the landlord without the involvement of his prior senior management contact. It is of concern to the Ombudsman that it appeared to need the intervention of the local councillor’s office on 12 August 2021, and the resident’s senior management contact on 18 August 2021, before his complaint was escalated for review, in line with its policy.
The resident has said that he did not receive the landlord’s final complaint response sent on 20 September 2021. As explained above, the information seen by the Ombudsman does not conclusively explain this, but it appears that the landlord did at least attempt to send its final response that day. It was appropriate that the landlord’s final response acknowledged the resident’s frustration at not having received replies, but the remainder of the final response was not in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, and therefore unreasonable.
The landlord’s final response stated that the issues raised in the resident’s original complaint were not within the remit of its ESP, but offered no explanation as to why the ESP had not passed it to an appropriate officer. This would have been unsatisfactory for the resident, and did not suggest that the landlord had learnt anything from the outcome of the complaint.
The response went on to state that the resident had appeared to be unaware of the process by which he should have submitted his complaint, and highlighted that he had not used the landlord’s dedicated email address. This would have left the resident feeling as if he was somehow being blamed for the landlord’s delays and poor complaint handling. The landlord’s response was therefore neither fair, nor in line with the complaint process accessibility assurances of its policy referred to above.
It was reasonable for the landlord’s response to restate that the resident’s insurance claim was being handled separately, but not appropriate that he was referred to the wrong Ombudsman. The response did appropriately apologise for the resident’s frustration, but it was difficult to understand how it could conclude that his complaint had only been ‘partly upheld’ – for which it offered no further explanation. The landlord also failed to offer any resolution or redress for its acknowledged failings, and as such did not put things right. The Ombudsman has made an order to this regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The resident’s complaint was initially ignored by its external service provider, in circumstances that would have been highly stressful for the resident. This was compounded by the landlord’s failure to address this point when it did respond to the resident’s complaint, nor to implement its process in line with its own policy. The landlord also failed to act in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It did not handle the resident’s complaint fairly, and failed to either put things right or demonstrate that it had learned anything from the outcome of the case.
Since the time of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman has published a report detailing the findings of its special investigation of the landlord’s services. It is acknowledged that the landlord has updated its complaints policy and various aspects of its processes since that time. As such, this is reflected in the recommendations below.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks the landlord:
1. writes to the resident to apologise for the service failings identified in this report;
2. pays the resident £400 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling;
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should share a copy of this report with its member responsible for complaints, along with an assessment of how it would have handled the complaint under its new policy and process, following the revisions made in response to the Ombudsman’s special report in February 2022.
The landlord should then identify any further improvements and actions within its complaint handling as a result of this investigation. The landlord should update the Ombudsman within eight weeks of the date of this report.