Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Lambeth Council (202232674)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232674

Lambeth Council

10 April 2024

 

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 handling of repairs in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started in September 1989. The property is a 2-bedroom, first-floor flat.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the landlord’s actions impacted her health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on the health of a resident. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused.
  2. Within the resident’s communication with this Service, she referred to property issues from 2018. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. This is reflected in the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period – usually six months.
  3. This report has focused on the repair request made on 25 March 2021 up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response dated 1 February 2023. Reference to recent and historic events is to provide context only.

Relevant policies, procedures, and laws

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of a property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
  2. The landlord’s repair manual (2021) sets out the following timescales for repairs:
    1. Urgent emergency – attend within 2 hours, fix within 24 hours.
    2. Emergency – fix within 1 working day.
    3. Routine – fix within 7 days.
    4. Routine – fix within 28 working days.
    5. Planned – complete within 90 days.
  3. The landlord’s repair manual states the resident is responsible for internal decoration. However, it will repair any decorations that are damaged because of other work it has done, or it will (if it chooses to) pay the resident a decoration allowance instead.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. These time frames should not be exceeded without good reason.

Summary of events

  1. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 28 September 2022. She said a redecoration job had been outstanding for 4 years.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 October 2022. It said:
    1. A work order was raised for decoration of the resident’s hallway on 25 March 2021 with its previous contractor.
    2. The contract between the landlord and said contractor ended before the repair work started.
    3. A work order was raised with the landlord’s new contractor on 5 October 2021. An operative attended and advised further works were required. A new appointment was scheduled for 16 December 2021; however, this was cancelled due to staff illness.
    4. A further work order was raised for redecoration to the hallway and kitchen on 21 December 2021. An operative failed to attend, and the job was cancelled.
    5. Another work order was raised on 13 April 2022. An operative attended on 24 May 2022. They reported more work was required and another appointment was scheduled for 27 June 2022 which they failed to attend.
    6. A new date was scheduled for 8 August 2022, where the operative reported works had been done in the hallway and kitchen. The work order was marked as complete.
    7. The resident called the landlord on 12 August 2022 to chase outstanding work. A work order was raised the same day to recall the operative to complete the decorations.
    8. Appointments were scheduled for 22 August 2022 and 6 September 2022 which the operative failed to attend.
    9. As part of the complaint resolution, the kitchen work would be completed on 3 October 2022 and the hallway on 14 November 2022.
    10. It apologised for any confusion, frustration and upset caused to the resident by the delays in service and missed appointments. It offered £400 compensation.
  3. The landlord provided a copy of the resident’s complaint escalation (undated). The resident said:
    1. She was assured the decorators would be coming on 30 December 2022, so she sent her family home after Christmas.
    2. She received a text message on the date saying the operative would arrive at 11:28am. No-one arrived.
    3. She called the landlord and was told to wait for the operative as it was an all-day appointment.
    4. She was told to call the landlord back on 3 January 2023. She tried all week but the call waiting times were 40 – 50 minutes.
  4. The landlord contacted its contractors on 20 January 2023 and 30 January 2023 asking for an update on the work order.
  5. On 30 January 2023, a contractor responded to say repairs were booked for 17 February 2023. However, a different work order number was quoted by the contractor.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 (final review) response on 2 February 2023. It said:
    1. It apologised the level of service provided did not meet the resident’s expectations.
    2. Work orders had previously been raised for its contractor to complete the decorations on 6 December 2022. However, this appointment did not go ahead.
    3. A new work order has been raised for redecorations to the hallway, ceilings, walls, and staircase area. The works would be done on 17 February 2023.
    4. It apologised for any confusion, frustration, and distress caused. It offered an additional £150 compensation.
    5. It took complaints seriously and uses them as a tool for organisational learning and to help service improvements.

Actions after the end of the complaints process

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 February 2023 stating she had taken another day off work, and no one had arrived. When she followed up, she was told the work order referenced in her complaint response was for a different property, and contractors would be attended her address on 3 March 2023.
  2. The resident contacted this Service on 31 March 2023 stating that no contractors attended to complete the outstanding repairs.
  3. The landlord evidenced that it sent an email on 19 June 2023 chasing various staff members for an update on the work order for redecoration works. The landlord received a response that all the people copied in no longer work for that contractor.
  4. The resident informed this Service that the decorative works were done in November 2023, however the painting was of a poor standard and a repair to a handrail was outstanding.
  5. The landlord informed this Service that a payment of £150 compensation was authorised on 23 November 2023 for repair delays. The evidence available suggests this payment was not made to the resident at the time. It is unclear whether this £150 was the sum awarded at stage 2, or a further sum of compensation to recognise repair delays after the resident completed the internal complaint procedure.
  6. In April 2024, the resident sourced her own contractor to rectify the outstanding works. The landlord agreed to cover the £200 incurred by the resident.

Assessment and findings

  1. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the property

  1. Within the resident’s communication with this Service, she said a repair to the roof in 2018 caused a leak, which in turn caused damage to her property. She explained she had been waiting for redecorations ever since.
  2. The matter of redecorations to the resident’s property went unresolved for an unreasonably long time. From the evidence available, the first work order for the remedial works was dated 25 March 2021. The resident confirmed she had arranged for her own contractor to complete the works in April 2024. The length of time to conclude the repairs was inappropriate in the circumstances.
  3. As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked for its records relating to the repairs, such as a copy of the resident’s initial repair request, repair logs, a record of communication, copies of any surveys or inspection reports, feedback from employees or contractors, an explanation of any work carried out, confirmation that the issue had been resolved and completion dates for any repairs. Some of this information has been provided but this does not fully evidence the landlord’s decision making at the time. For example, the repair history supplied shows work orders were raised multiple times. It is not clear what actions were taken following each appointment, with unreasonable delays in-between recorded actions. It is of concern that the landlord has not provided more detailed records and has not evidenced active management of the repairs.
  4. The landlord’s limited records in relation to repairs provides little confidence that any meaningful action was taken. The records we have prior to this date do not indicate any urgency in completing the required works. While it is referenced at stage 1 that operatives attended the property on occasion, the landlord’s records do not explain what work was done or how the resident’s expectations were managed. There is no evidence of the progress of the repair being tracked early on or anyone having responsibility to ensure the repair was followed through to completion.
  5. The landlord did note in its stage 1 response that the repair delays were attributed to a change of contractor, but in the Ombudsman’s view, this is not an acceptable reason. Landlords should ensure that any change in their contractors or suppliers are sufficiently planned to minimise impacts on residents.
  6. Within the landlord’s submission to this Service, it said following a change in contractor, the delay was then exacerbated by the landlord’s ability to provide a non-emergency repair service due to restrictions during the pandemic. This in turn caused challenges completing older work orders once restrictions lifted. This Service appreciates that the landlord had repair backlogs because of the lockdown restrictions, and it may have subsequently needed to prioritise urgent works once restrictions were gradually lifted. However, the Ombudsman is minded that this does not fully account for the significant delays the resident experienced. Further, it is a failing that the landlord has not evidenced whether it considered paying a decoration allowance instead (as its policy allows it to do).
  7. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. Due to the lack of detailed evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted fully in line with its repairing obligations or that it managed the resident’s expectations throughout.
  8. From the evidence available, the resident spent an unreasonable amount of time chasing for updates, attempting to drive the repairs forward and following up with the landlord when operatives did not attend appointments. The burden of following up responses from the landlord should not fall upon the resident. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings throughout exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on a vulnerable resident.
  9. Within this case, the landlord offered compensation of £550 for the impact of the repair delays on the resident. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) sets out what we consider when determining cases. The £550 compensation offered by the landlord is appropriate for situations where there has been maladministration but no permanent impact on the resident. This includes factors that are relevant to this complaint such as chasing responses and repair delays. After considering all the circumstances of this case, the financial compensation provided by the landlord was in accordance with our guidance for the landlord’s failures.
  10. This review considers events from March 2021 up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response dated 1 February 2023. As the key complaint issue was not resolved during the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, the Ombudsman cannot say that the landlord adequately addressed the issue or put things right. This constitutes maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord responded to the complaint at both stages within the timescale set out in the Code.
  2. The Code states that when responding to a complaint the “remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.” It is a concern to the Ombudsman that appointment dates were scheduled at both complaint stages yet were not kept. These works remained outstanding for months after the landlord’s final complaint response. This was unacceptable and opens questions as to how effectively the landlord is using its complaints process to resolve disputes.
  3. The landlord’s response at stage 2 was insufficient and did not contain accurate information. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord did not treat the matter with an appropriate level of regard. At stage 2, the landlord has not demonstrated that it investigated the history of the resident’s complaint or explained what evidence it considered. It did not refer to its own investigation or policies. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to thoroughly investigate and consider the impact on the resident. Furthermore, the landlord provided no evidence to this Service to demonstrate how it investigated the resident’s complaint or that it learnt from the resident’s experience. Taken altogether, the landlord missed opportunities to manage the repair through to completion, show empathy, and improve the landlord/resident relationship.
  4. Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. At stage 1, no learning was identified. At stage 2, the landlord said it uses complaints as a tool for organisational learning. This was inadequate. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline specific actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. The Ombudsman is minded that the landlord should have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience to improve its service provision, communication, and management of repairs.
  5. In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. We continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance, reaching findings of maladministration and severe maladministration following investigations into 20 separate complaints from residents.
  6. In June 2023 we told the landlord of our intention to conduct an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In December 2023 we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement. In this investigation we identified failures like those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. The Ombudsman has therefore not made duplicate orders or recommendations within this report. Nonetheless, we expect the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its future service provision.
  7. Overall, the failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint meant that the complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool to resolve the dispute. The complaint handling failures identified result in a finding of maladministration.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord recognised its delay completing the repairs. It apologised for this and offered redress that was in line with our guidance. However, it failed to resolve the substantive issue within its complaint procedure.
  2. The landlord did not reference its policies or the evidence it relied on within its complaint investigation. It also failed to provide a full record of its complaint investigation to this Service. It did not evidence learning from the complaint, and it failed to monitor the repair through to completion.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for the complaint handling failures identified.
  2. Evidence of compliance with the above order should be provided to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended for the landlord to pay the resident the £550 it previously offered within its complaints process if it has not yet done so.
  2. It is recommended for the landlord to reimburse the resident £200 for the repairs arranged by her own contractor, as agreed in April 2024.
  3. It is recommended for the landlord to consider whether any additional compensation is due to the resident to reflect the repair delay from February 2023 to April 2024.
  4. The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks, setting out its intentions regarding the above recommendations.