Lambeth Council (202211798)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211798

Lambeth Council

25 May 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
   1. Response to reports of a leaking radiator.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a five-bedroom terrace house with a garden.
3. The resident reported a leaking radiator to the landlord on 19 January 2022 and received an acknowledgement the same day. A further text was received from the landlord on 20 January 2022 to advise that a contractor would be at the property between 08:00 and 18:00 to attend to the repair. When the landlord’s contractor did not arrive in the time frame advised, the resident emailed the landlord’s contractor to complain and to chase this up. The landlord’s contractor arrived at the resident’s property at 19:49 but was unable to repair the leak as further parts were needed.
4. Following back and forth correspondence, an appointment was confirmed to complete the repair on 24 January between 13:00 and 18:00. Again, however, the contractor did not attend and the resident was not given any notice or explanation, nor an alternative date. According to the contractor, it was unable to contact the resident via telephone.
5. The resident subsequently raised a further complaint with the contractor via email on 25 January 2022 at which time, he chased a repair date and time. This complaint was not acknowledged but the repair was completed on 26 January 2022.
6. On 1 February 2022 the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord, requesting an explanation for the missed appointments, the absence of a complaint acknowledgement, and for the lack of clear communication. He requested compensation for his time and trouble.
7. In its stage one response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, advising that it would contact the contractor directly to discuss his compensation request. Following a request to consider this matter at stage two, however, the landlord offered its final response on 24 May 2022. It apologised for delays in responding to the resident’s complaint, shared information on its complaint process, and reiterated that it had asked its contractor to contact the resident directly to arrange compensation. This Service has seen no evidence that a compensation offer was made.
8. As an outcome to the complaint, the resident would like an apology, compensation for time and trouble and frustration and an explanation of the measures that would be put in place to ensure that other residents do not have the same experience.

Assessment and findings

Dispute Resolution Principles

9. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
   1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
   2. Put things right and;
   3. Learn from outcomes.
10. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse affect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse affect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s response to reports of a leaking radiator

11. The landlord’s Right to Repair policy classes a leak to ‘a water pipe’ as a repair which should be remedied within one working day. The policy goes on to state that ‘If we do not meet the target times, you can ask us to get another contractor to do the work within the same length of time. If the work is still not done, you may be entitled to claim compensation’.
12. Moreover, the Landlord’s Compensation Policy allows for a payment of £20 for each missed appointment and a sum of between £5 and £15 for loss of amenity. The Policy goes on to state that in the event of a complaint about a contractor, ‘the relevant contract penalty clause should be invoked to ensure payment of compensation is reimbursed. Payment to the customer should not be delayed by an attempt to seek reimbursement from the contractor.’ It further adds that ‘payment of compensation should be processed within four weeks of the date of the reply to the complaint’.  
13. The resident reported a leaking radiator to the landlord on 19 January 2022. The landlord acknowledged the repair request on the same day and contacted the resident the following day, 20 January to advise it would attend to the repair on 20 January between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00. The resident emailed the landlord’s contractor to complain when he did not arrive by 18:00. The Landlord’s contractor  then arrived on 20 January at 19:49. Although this is a short delay, the resident was not informed that the contractor would be late and he advises that this caused him frustration, time and trouble. Although this Service understands that delays may happen, it would have been right to let the resident know of the delay to ensure the resident was home to grant access. This Service appreciates that the resident would have been further frustrated by the fact that once the contractor attended, he was unable to repair the radiator as he needed a part.
14. The resident subsequently emailed  the landlord’s contractor to rearrange the repair to 24 January 2022. This was confirmed by the landlord’s contractor, however nobody attended the property and the repair was not carried out on this day. The lack of communication regarding non-attendance was a failing by the landlord. Further, the landlord did not comply with the timescale set out in the Right to Repair Policy for leaks of this nature. At minimum, it would have been reasonable for the contractor to have let the resident know, ahead of time, that the appointment would not be going ahead.
15. The resident complained again via email to the landlord’s contractor for the miscommunication, asked for reasons for this in writing, requested an update on the repair and also requested that he be compensated for his time and trouble. It is unclear why the resident did not receive a response to this. This failure meant that the resident resorted to raising a further complaint with the landlord.
16. The Ombudsman is aware that the leak issue was repaired on 26 January 2022. After this time, the resident sought further answers to his dissatisfaction which the landlord responded to on 6 April 2022. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint but advised that an offer of compensation would need to be arranged with the contractor. This was not in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
17. The resident subsequently submitted a Stage 2 Complaint on 13 April 2022, advising of the delays in the complaint response and asking the landlord to clarify its position on  complaint handling, contractor delays and asking for an explanation as to why the contractor did not attend on 24 January 2022 as arranged. He also reiterated his request for compensation due to time and trouble and inconvenience.
18. The landlord’s final complaint response of 24 May 2022 informed the resident that it did not know why the appointment of 24 January had been missed, it did not apologise for the missed appointment and went on to reiterate that it would contact the contractor to arrange compensation to the resident for the delay. This caused the resident frustration and time and trouble in pursuing his complaint. This Service would have expected the landlord to have taken responsibility for the missed appointments and for the general handling of the repair. By passing the matter on to its contractor, as well as the cost of any compensation due, however, the landlord failed to do this.
19. Although the landlord’s contractor did initially attend to the leaking radiator within one working day as per the Right to Repair Policy, it did not attend in the timescale advised to the resident. This Service accepts that delays may occur, however, it would have been right to inform the resident of the delay. Furthermore, the landlord’s contractor did not attend the next pre-arranged appointment and offered no explanation and no apology. There was a lack of communication on the part of the landlord’s contractor and the repair was delayed. Although it is reasonable that the landlord would need time to source a part for the leaking radiator, it is not reasonable to miss an appointment without letting the resident know, or to update the resident on the progress of the repair. Furthermore, as well as offering no explanation, neither the landlord nor the landlord’s contractor apologised. Although the leak to the radiator was repaired on 26 January 2022, in its final complaint response, the landlord offered no apology for the missed appointment or reasonable explanation to the resident as to the issues with communication and the missed appointment.
20. Contrary to the landlord’s compensation policy, payment to the resident was  delayed by an attempt to seek payment from its contractor, with no confirmation that any amount would be awarded. This Service also notes that despite the policy suggesting that a payment of compensation should be processed within four weeks of the date of the reply to the complaint, the resident received no redress. As such, while the landlord did advise that it had learned lessons from the complaint and had taken steps to ensure that similar issues of this nature did not reoccur, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was a clear failure to put things right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

21. The landlord has a two-stage complaint policy

a.     Local Resolution – where a formal response will be provided within 20 working days.

b.     Final Review (Final Response) – where a formal response will be provided within 25 working days.

22. The resident submitted a first stage – local resolution complaint to the landlord on 1 February 2022. Although the landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day, the landlord did not provide a Stage 1 response until 6 April 2022, despite the resident chasing the response. It took the landlord 47 working days to respond to the complaint and this is 27 days later than the landlord’s complaints policy timeframe. This is a failing on the part of the landlord. It did not comply with its own timescales and this caused the resident frustration and upset. The landlord did apologise for the delay and advised it now had additional resources in place. Although this goes some way to providing redress to the resident, it did not offer the resident any compensation for the delay, nor did it address the resident’s specific questions about the reason for the delay to his repair.
23. Upon receiving an escalation request from the resident on 13 April 2022, the landlord provided its final review response on 24 May 2022. This was 27 working days later, again outside of the landlord’s own time frames of 25 working days. While this minor delay would have had a minimal impact, in combination with the landlord’s earlier delay, this was inappropriate. This is a failing on the part of the landlord and caused the resident additional frustration and stress.
24. This Service can see that the landlord apologised for this and advised it had reminded its complaints team to update residents when delays were expected. It also provided the resident with information he requested on how complaints were managed and prioritised, which was appropriate.
25. However, the landlord made no offer of redress. In the Ombudsman’s view, it therefore did not sufficiently recognise the adverse impact on the resident which resulted from the time and trouble expended, the inconvenience, and the likely frustration experienced.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leaking radiator.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

28. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord should award the resident £155. This has been calculated as:
    1. £105 in recognition of its handling of the leaking radiator. This is made up of £20 x 2 for the missed appointments, £15 for loss of amenity, and £50 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience experienced.
    2. Pay the resident £50 in recognition of its complaint handling.