Lambeth Council (202121350)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121350

Lambeth Council

30 June 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. a water leak affecting the resident’s property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat and the landlord is a freeholder. The resident experienced water leaking into her flat in October 2021 which she reported to the landlord.
  2. The landlord sent plumbers to examine the leak and believed it had resolved it on 29 November 2021. However, the resident experienced further leaks. The landlord created a new job for the reported leaks on 30 November 2021. The landlord noted this as resolved on 5 January 2022 when it cleared a blockage from a drain serving the resident’s kitchen sink. The resident continued to report leaks. The landlord sent plumbers and drainage contractors to attend to her property to investigate and resolve the leak.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 7 January 2022 about the leaks. The landlord responded at stage one of its complaint process on 10 February 2022. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged there were delays and that communication could have been better. It also stated that it completed a couple of jobs relating to leaks at her flat in October and November 2021, but it had raised a new repair job for the soil stack. The landlord invited the resident to contact the service centre for updates and said it was treating the repair as a priority.
  4. The resident continued to experience leaks after the landlord’s stage one complaint response and requested an escalation of her complaint in May 2022. The landlord responded at stage two of its complaint process to apologise for any inconvenience and the delay caused in responding. It said it had chased the area repairs team to investigate the ongoing issues and find a way to resolve them. It said that a repairs surveyor would contact the resident shortly and directed the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if she wished to escalate the complaint further.
  5. By October 2022, the landlord identified the source of the leak as coming from an upstairs flat and this allowed it to ensure the leak affecting the resident’s flat stopped. The landlord indicates it completed the work on 25 October 2022.
  6. The resident would like the Service to consider how the landlord responded to her reports of leaks as she is unhappy with the length of time taken to identify the source of the leak and the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The evidence shows that the resident experienced persistent leaks however it is unclear whether these were down to a single cause or different ones. Although this Service cannot offer an expert opinion on the cause of the leak it can assess how the landlord responded to the problem. This investigation will consider the reasonableness of the landlord’s response and investigation. The landlord has not provided this Service with detailed repair records making it more difficult to establish what happened. The resident in contrast has provided a detailed chronology of the landlord’s actions which this Service has compared to the landlord’s account as far as possible.

The landlord’s rights and obligations

  1. The resident’s lease indicates that the landlord remains responsible for repairs to soil pipes provided the resident has kept to her lease obligations. Leaseholders are responsible for any repairs to leaking pipes and drains within their own properties. Under the lease, the landlord has a retained right as a freeholder to enter leasehold properties where it needs to repair drains and pipes. The landlord bears ultimate responsibility for investigating the source of leaks to determine whether it is responsible for any repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks

  1. The evidence shows the resident reported a leak in October 2021. The landlord identified that there was a leak in the soil pipe and raised a repair job. The landlord visited the resident’s flat to take pictures in October 2021 and in early November 2021. Leaks can be difficult to locate and rectify and will often involve diagnostic or investigatory work to identify the source. It will not always be possible for landlords to repair leaks or determine who is responsible for them immediately. However, a landlord should inform residents what work it has done when attending and whether it will need to do further work. It was reasonable at this stage for the landlord to attempt to identify the cause of the leak so it could determine the required repair work and who was responsible for it.
  2. The evidence shows the landlord thought it had resolved a leak on 29 November 2021, however the basis of this conclusion is unclear as it provided no reports of the work undertaken. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of what it had done to fix the leak. The resident contacted the landlord about another leak she experienced from 9 to 12 December 2021 and 16 December 2021. The evidence indicates on 5 January 2022 the landlord cleaned a drain serving a kitchen sink and regarded the leak as resolved, but the resident continued to have leaks throughout January 2022. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be responsive to recurrent leaks and act within their published repair timescales to identify the cause of the leaks and take appropriate steps to resolve them.
  3. The landlord did not attend the resident’s property again until 14 February 2022 which was a long gap from when the resident first reported the leak. This was an unreasonable delay of over a month given the priority given to water leaks. When the landlord attended on 14 February 2022, its plumber took pictures and recommended the insertion of a camera down the toilet. The plumber did not address the leak itself, based on the available evidence. Whilst gathering information is a necessary part of dealing with any leak landlords should be proactive on following up on any information gathered. There is no evidence of what conclusions the landlord made from the photographs or what other work it intended to do.
  4. The landlord did not attend the resident’s property again until 19 May 2022 when it took pictures inside an air vent and made an urgent referral to drainage contractors. The landlord’s contractors completed a CCTV drainage survey on 26 May 2022. Throughout the period between February 2022 and May 2022, the resident had been reporting leaks. The landlord engaged in diagnostic work, but it did not do any repair work or explain why it was unable to identify who was responsible for repairing the leak, which was unreasonable. It was also an unreasonable delay as the landlord’s contractor had first recommended a camera on 14 February 2022, but it took until 26 May 2022 for the survey to be carried out. It was not acceptable for the landlord to allow the resident to experience leaks throughout this three-month period without making efforts to fix them. It also lost a valuable early opportunity to take assertive action to locate the leak and deal with the problem.
  5. There was another unreasonable delay in the landlord’s attending to the resident’s property as after May 2022 it did not attend again until 20 July 2022. The landlord’s plumber attended but took no action to resolve the leak other than to recommend a surveyor and drainage contractor attend. The surveyor did not attend until 11 August 2022 and then had to return on 18 August 2022 as they had identified that they needed access to neighbouring properties. This was an unreasonable delay of around seven weeks as the landlord had told the resident on 1 July 2022 that a surveyor would be in touch soon.
  6. The landlord was able to repair a leak in the bathroom on 18 August 2022, but the resident still experienced further leaks from 19 August 2022 to the beginning of October 2022. During this period, the landlord cleared a blocked rainwater downpipe at another flat on 2 September 2022 and agreed to attend a neighbouring property on 29 September 2022. It had to re-arrange this for 3 October 2022 because the neighbour was not in. When it attended, the landlord was unable to do any work because of difficulties accessing the neighbouring property.
  7. Residents are expected to cooperate and allow access to their properties for landlords to do repair work. The landlord was aware since 9 December 2021 that it would be necessary to gain access to the neighbouring property. The landlord was still struggling with access issues in October 2022, ten months later, with no evidence that it had taken steps to ensure access. For example, the landlord has not provided copies of notices served on neighbours to gain access to neighbouring properties. The landlord should have done more to secure access given its responsibilities, its rights of access in the lease, and the protracted nature of the leak. It could have issued warnings and looked at pursuing a legal injunction if access were not granted. It is not reasonable to delay work because of access issues where it has a legal responsibility to identify the cause of the leak and it had a right of entry. It is likely that the lack of action may have caused more extensive damage to the property and caused the resident more stress.
  8. The evidence shows that the landlord’s plumber missed five appointments between October 2021 and 16 March 2022 and that the landlord’s electrician had missed two appointments in December 2021. When the landlord did attend on 29 October 2021, 5 November 2021, 11 November 2021, and 14 February 2022 there was no timely follow-up after each appointment. The landlord failed to explain the reasons for the missed appointments or offer any redress. Where it cannot make appointments, the Ombudsman expects landlords to apologise and re-arrange but there is no evidence the landlord did this.
  9. The resident also experienced a power cut on 2 December 2021 for nine hours and between 23 April and 9 May 2022, she did not have lights for a time as she had to switch off the mains for health & safety reasons. The resident informed the landlord on 11 March 2022 that she had water coming from a light in the bathroom which should have alerted it to a serious health and safety risk. The landlord’s response was to inform the resident that it would need another ten days to attend. The response of the landlord was inadequate and unreasonable given the serious nature of the issue and potential risk to life from the electrical issue.
  10. Despite the resident informing the landlord that water was affecting her electrics in March 2022 it was not until 19 August 2022 that an electrician came to make the lights safe. The landlord left the resident with faulty electrics for nearly five months which is unacceptable. The resident reports that her landlord’s response to her informing it that her living room ceiling roof had collapsed on 9 October 2022 due to water damage was that it was unable to arrange help as it was a Sunday. This is an unreasonable response as emergencies can occur on any day of the week. Landlords need to have provision to attend properties on the weekend where necessary to carry out emergency repairs.

The landlord’s communications with the resident

  1. There is also evidence that the landlord failed to keep the resident updated. It emailed the resident on 20 February 2022 to say it would respond in two days, but the resident did not hear from it until she called again on 2 March 2022. On 5 April 2022, the landlord promised the resident an update by the end of the week, but she did not hear anything so had to call again on 21 April 2022. It promised the resident a call back on 26 April 2022 the next working day but failed to call her. The resident had to chase the landlord for the outcome of the CCTV survey four times between 31 May 2022 and 18 June 2022 with the landlord promising a call back each time but never completing one. When the landlord called the resident back on 25 June 2022 it said that it would arrange a call on 1 July 2022 but failed to do so.
  2. The repeated failure of the landlord to update the resident caused her distress and involved her in having to chase the landlord which was unreasonable. The Ombudsman is of the opinion, that residents should expect landlords to return their calls and to receive regular updates about repair works without having to chase. On several occasions, the landlord requested the resident call it back if she had not received a promised call. The landlord also told the resident to speak with neighbours on 11 August and 29 September 2022 to arrange access to their properties when it was the landlord’s responsibility to arrange this. These actions placed the onus on the resident to manage the repairs, which is unfair.

The landlord’s record keeping

  1. An accurate audit trail is a crucial part of a landlord’s service delivery. As part of this investigation, this Service requested the landlord’s full repair records regarding the reported leaks including any “correspondence and telephone contact notes concerning their (the resident’s) reports about this issue”, “information related to any repairs carried out at the property consequent to reported leaks, such as repair logs and an explanation of any work carried out”. The landlord only provided this investigation with a copy of some brief entries of repairs from June to October 2022 and a drainage report from 2 September 2022. This is not appropriate as the information provided does not provide a full timeline of events and actions taken, and the landlord has not provided any explanation for this.
  2. The landlord also told the resident or noted on six occasions between January and October 2022 that it had completed the jobs raised without explaining its reasons. This was unhelpful as the resident continued to experience leaks intermittently during this period. This also led to the landlord closing job references on 5 January 2022, 10 May 2022, and 22 August 2022. On the latter two dates, the landlord created a new reference for the same job which contributed to the confusion. Whilst it is legitimate for a landlord to close a repair job that is satisfactorily completed, it should avoid creating duplicate job orders or references for the same job as this can lead to delays and can create a confused audit trail.
  3. The landlord also did not update notes to record work that it either agreed to or recommended on three occasions between June and October 2022 which caused the resident distress. It is important for landlord’s contractors to update systems with the actions taken or recommended in a timely way after each visit. This creates a clear audit trail and allows for more effective repair handling.

The landlord’s associated complaint handling

  1. The landlord told the resident on 7 January 2022 that it would respond to her complaint at stage one of its process by 4 February 2022, but it responded on 10 February 2022. This was a short delay, but the leaks were ongoing, and the landlord only responded after this Service contacted it and gave a deadline. There was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaint at stage two of its internal complaints process, with the resident escalating the complaint in May 2022. The landlord should have responded in 20 working days but responded on 1 July 2022, which was significantly in excess of this timescale.
  2. The landlord’s stage two response was brief and given the history was lacking in detail. The landlord also signposted the resident incorrectly to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for redress. It should have been aware that this Service has responsibility for complaints about housing management, including complaints about repairs. The referral to the wrong Ombudsman service may have caused further confusion as the resident could have been left unsure of whom to contact to escalate her complaint.

Conclusions and remedies

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs (“Room for Improvement,” published in March 2019) outlines that landlords should “Agree actions and timescales for responding in line with …policies and obligations and confirm these in writing. Inform the resident of any delays and explain why these are necessary.” It also recommends that “Where complex or extensive work is required, acknowledge that there are outstanding repairs. Explain what action will be taken and provide timescales, even if these are provisional.”
  2. The landlord had an obligation to keep in good repair the soil pipe and drainage installations serving properties in the resident’s block of flats. It was responsible for identifying the source of the leak to ensure it was resolved by whoever was responsible for it. The leak and damage reported by the resident remained unresolved for a year after she reported the leak and had worsened during that period. The landlord failed to identify the cause of the leak and repair responsibility in a reasonable time. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It meant she could not fully enjoy her property and involved her in having to chase her landlord.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles set out the approach to providing remedies. The three principles are: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. From the available evidence, the landlord has not demonstrated that through its complaints process, it recognised all that had gone wrong, took appropriate and proportionate steps to put things right with the resident, or that it learnt from the complaints. The Ombudsman has therefore made a series of orders aimed at putting things right with the resident, and for the landlord to review its internal processes to mitigate the risk of similar failings happening again.
  4. The resident does not pay rent, so it is not possible to take any rent paid into account as a basis for calculating compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion compensation of £60 per week would be appropriate given the living room and the toilet suffered water damage and the property was also without lighting for an extended period.
  5. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, a fair starting point for when this should be paid is when the resident could have expected her landlord to have completed the investigation and works. The Ombudsman believes that it would have been reasonable for the resident to have expected the landlord to complete any repair works by 90 days of the report on 9 December 2021, so by 9 March 2022. This is because the landlord’s repair policy has a 90-day limit on planned repairs. The landlord noted the repair works as completed on 25 October 2022, 33 weeks after this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a reported leak by the resident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings for its delays and poor communication regarding the leak repairs and errors in the landlord’s complaint handling.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £1,980 (calculated at a weekly rate of £60.00 multiplied by 33, the number of weeks between 9 March and 25 October 2022. This is on account of the delays and poor communication, including distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident for its overall handling of the leak.
    3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service within four weeks of this report.
    4. Complete a review of its overall management of this case and identify any lessons learnt following the Ombudsman’s investigation to understand why it took so long to identify the source of the leak and gain access to neighbouring properties.
    5. It must also complete an action plan regarding how it can improve its service to its residents including communications with residents, employees, and contractors and accessing neighbouring properties. The outcome of the review and action plan is to be shared with this Service within six weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord should:
    1. Within four weeks of the date of this report remind staff of the importance of clear and accurate record keeping. This should include the recording of sufficient information during and after an appointment to specify what was found on inspection and what action, if any, was taken. If a follow-up appointment is required, staff should ensure that clear information relating to this is recorded to avoid uncertainty or ambiguity about what is required.
    2. Within six weeks of the date of this report share its learning from this complaint with its repairs staff and contractors, protecting the resident’s right to anonymity and personal data.