Lambeth Council (202115650)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115650

Lambeth Council

15 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. The complaint is about:
  1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property following leaks.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident, who is a secure tenant, raised a formal complaint on 30 August 2021, in which she advised that there was outstanding damage to her property following leaks in March and June 2021. The damage was to her kitchen and her front room, and consisted of damp and mould in the kitchen cupboard, and bowing of the ceiling in the front room. She also advised that she had previously raised two complaints with the landlord in July and August regarding the fact that the repairs remained outstanding.
  2. The landlord’s stage one response (20 September 2021) acknowledged that visits had been made to the property, in which the damage was observed and noted. It advised that several work orders had been raised, which included a job to repair the soil stack (which had been issued to a new contractor), and a job to hack off and renew ceiling plaster in the front room (this was raised as a priority). The landlord also advised that supplies had been ordered to repair a fault with the bath.
  3. The landlord’s final response (7 December 2021) apologised for delays in carrying out the repairs. The work orders that had been raised in the stage one response remained outstanding, however, the landlord did confirm that the plastering work was scheduled for 10 December 2021. The landlord also advised that as it was awaiting further information, it was unable to award an appropriate remedy, and would therefore contact the resident no later than 21 December 2021 with a further update. It also apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused. Following this, on 17 December 2021, the landlord confirmed that the outstanding work was completed, yet the resident advised that this was not the case.
  4. The re-plastering was carried out to the front room on 10 December 2021, and an appointment for the redecoration works was agreed with the resident for 18 January 2022. There is no evidence to suggest that this was not carried out. The work to the kitchen cupboard was scheduled for 3 February 2022. However, following access issues, this was completed on 4 February 2022. The landlord also offered a total of £150 compensation as a goodwill gesture, however, the resident wished for an increase to this.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repair responsibilities state that urgent repairs are to be carried out within three working days, non-urgent repairs to be done within seven working days, and routine repairs to be responded to within 28 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy advises that a stage one response should be provided within 20 working days. Should the landlord not be able to provide a response within this timeframe, the landlord should inform the resident and explain the reason for the delay, and when the resident should expect the response.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy also explains that a stage two response should be provided within 25 working days.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property following leaks

  1. The landlord did not dispute that there was failure regarding its handling of the repairs to the damaged property. It offered compensation recognising this, and ensured that the works were completed. Therefore, it is the purpose of this investigation to determine whether the compensation offered was reasonable, and relevant to the detriment caused to the resident.
  2. The landlord made it clear to the resident that it would carry out works to the property in order to repair damages. Following this confirmation, the landlord was obliged to carry out the repairs within a reasonable time period. The time periods for repairs are set out within the landlord’s policies and procedures, and failure to stick to these timeframes without reasonable justification, or without keeping the resident would be a service failure.
  3. The resident advised that the damage to the kitchen and front room was caused by leaks in March and June 2021. This was not disputed by the landlord. As such, at the time of her formal complaint, the work had been outstanding for roughly five months. This was well over the maximum timeframe allowed for completing non-urgent repairs (seven working days).
  4. The work to the plastering on the front room ceiling was completed on 10 December 2021, and the redecoration completed on 18 January 2022. This is 10 months after the initial damage, that the resident’s front room was returned to its original state.
  5. Following this, the works to the kitchen cupboard, that had been rendered unusable by damp and mould, was finally repaired on 4 February 2022. This was a total of 11 months from the time that the leak initially caused the damage.
  6. Damp and mould can be a potentially serious health and safety hazard, especially when present in an area used for food preparation. The landlord should have addressed this immediately with an inspection, in order to identify the severity of the issue. It should have also followed this up with whatever remedy was suitable given the outcome of an inspection.
  7. This a delay of 11 months was unnecessary, and could have been avoided had there been better internal communication between the landlord and its contractors. As shown in the provided correspondence, there were several occasions in which the landlord demonstrated that it believed the work had been completed when, in fact, it had not been. For example, on 17 December 2021, the landlord advised the resident that all work was completed, yet the matter of the kitchen cupboard was outstanding. It is also clear that the landlord was aware of this work, as the resident had presented the landlord with its own reference number for the work regarding the kitchen cupboard on 6 September 2021.
  8. In regards to the landlord’s communication, there were also failures in how it communicated with the resident during her pursuit to ensure the repairs were completed. The landlord has a duty to keep the resident reliably informed and updated regarding the progress of repairs to her property. This is an important part of the landlord’s service delivery, and therefore an important part of maintaining a positive landlord/tenant relationship.
  9. The landlord’s failure to keep the resident informed and updated caused her unnecessary involvement, as she was required to chase the landlord to find out when repairs would take place. Additionally, as already noted, the resident had to inform the landlord that repairs were outstanding when it believed that they had been completed.
  10. When considering the significant delay in ensuring that all repairs were resolved, and the communication failures that contributed to the delay, it is the opinion of this Service that there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the repairs to damage following leaks. As such, it would be appropriate for the landlord to increase its compensation offer appropriately.
  11. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances in which there was maladministration that adversely affected the resident, but where there was no permanent impact, a payment of £100 to £600 would be appropriate. It is the opinion of this Service that the landlord should pay £550 for the delay in resolving repairs (£50 per month, for 11 months), and £50 for the communication failures, and failure to keep the resident informed. This amounts to a total of £600.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. In the resident’s stage one complaint, she advised that she had attempted to raise a complaint on two prior occasions in July and August 2021. She informed the landlord that she had received no response to these complaints.
  2. Although the evidence of these complaints had not been provided by the resident, the landlord did not dispute these claims. Additionally, the landlord also failed to respond to these claims in its complaint responses.
  3. As the landlord has offered no dispute to the fact that the resident attempted to make these complaints, nor did it offer any reasoning for why it may have not received them, this Service has no reason to believe that the resident did not make these complaints. As such, it was the landlord’s duty to address this in its complaint responses, as it had been formally raised by the resident.
  4. Not only would this have presented the landlord an opportunity to explain itself to the resident, more importantly, it was an opportunity to demonstrate that it had considered, and taken seriously, the resident’s concerns. The failure to respond to an aspect of a formally raised complaint, denied the resident the opportunity to have her voice heard and responded to.
  5. As it was clearly a concern of the resident, the landlord should have addressed the concerns, offered reasoning for its failure to respond to her complaints, and should have offered an appropriate remedy. Responding to complaint wholly and appropriately is an important part of the landlord’s service delivery, and failure to address complaints in full, in a sense, is failure to hold itself accountable for its shortcomings.
  6. The landlord’s failure to address all issues raised by the resident was a service failure, and it is the opinion of this Service that it would be appropriate to award further compensation in recognition of this. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances in which there was service failure that may have caused disappointment, a payment of £50 would be appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property following leaks.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £650 in recognition of these failures. The original £150 offered by the landlord is incorporated in this calculation. This is to be paid within four weeks of the date of this investigation, and can be broken down to:
  1. £600 for the landlord’s handling of repairs.
  2. £50 for the landlord’s complaint handling.