Lambeth Council (202308257)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308257

Lambeth Council

30 October 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. The resident’s complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a move.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident occupied her flat in a block with her 12-year-old daughter under a secure tenancy which began in 2011. During the complaint, she reported that she had mental health issues and provided medical evidence stating that she was diagnosed with PTSD.
  2. On 16 April 2022, the resident suffered a fire in her property from the flat below. She was moved into temporary accommodation.
  3. On 8 June 2022, the resident made a complaint that, having been moved from hotel to hotel, she did not feel safe returning to her property. She reported she had been traumatised. She requested a move from her property and not into a tower block. She also felt her housing officer became “frustrated“ with her and asked her not to contact him.
  4. The resident’s housing services manager replied on 14 June 2022 as follows:
    1. The letter referred to the resident’s complaint as concerning “your enquiries”.
    2. He “would like to reiterate as previously advised quite a few times” that her case had been allocated to him for all her enquiries.
    3. He had “tried to explain” this following her “dissatisfaction” with the temporary accommodation (TA) the landlord/local authority had provided her with.
    4. She had refused the TA and no other was available.
    5. She had asked to move back to her property. He was arranging an inspection to check the property was habitable and safe. He was trying to arrange remedial works. Windows were to be installed on 8 June 2022. Scaffolding was to be erected to carry out works to the rear elevation and her balcony.
    6. She had not been told not to contact him. He was her point of contact.
    7. In relation to her request for a transfer, she should continue to bid. He explained he was unable to provide a timescale because of the demand. He referred her how to apply for medical priority.
    8. He appreciated it was difficult but asked her to be patient.
    9. There was no explanation of how to escalate her complaint if she was not happy with the response.
  5. On the same day, the resident replied that the manager, who the complaint response was from, was the same person who the complaint was about and he had spoken to her “very angrily and hostile”. She queried why the same person was dealing with her complaint. She had been informed about alternative property.
  6. On 15 June 2022, the landlord wrote that her property was deemed to be safe. Replacement glass had been installed. There was no need for a decant and it advised her to continue to bid with through the housing register. It also advised her how to apply for medical priority.
  7. On 25 September 2022, the resident made another complaint. She said she was still waiting for a response to her June 2022 complaint. She had moved in with her sister where she was sleeping on a sofa. She set out the impact of the fire on her, including that the events had been “extremely traumatic”. Her daughter had suffered panic attacks and sleepless nights. She had had to leave her job due to a lack of focus. They had both received counselling. Works to the windows and the bathroom fan were outstanding.
  8. On 1 November 2022, the landlord replied referring to her complaint of 4 October 2022. It treated the complaint as if it were a complaint about outstanding works. The works to windows at the rear of the property were to be completed on 14 October 2022. It “hoped” they would be resolved by the time of its response.
  9. On 26 January 2023, the resident asked to escalate the complaint on the basis that it was not about the works but about having to return to the property.
  10. On 3 March 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint of 4 October 2022. It stated that the complaint team was “unable to influence the issue of transfers” and that she would need to bid for a transfer through the housing register. In relation to an offer of a ground floor, 2-bedroom property, an internal transfer “was possible” through active bidding and it advised her to actively bid to “increase your success” of securing a suitable accommodation. Mutual exchange was another option and it provided a website link.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

The resident’s request to move

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The Scheme states as follows:
    1. Under Paragraph 42(j), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
  3. The guidance accompanying the Memorandum of Understanding between the Housing Ombudsman and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) Memorandum of Understanding – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) sets out that the LGSCO investigates complaints regarding applications to the local authority housing register (such as increasing the applicant’s banding, or priority) under Part 6 (allocations/housing register) and Part 7 (homelessness) of the Housing Act 1996.
  4. In June 2022, the resident asked to be rehoused. She was advised to make an application to the Housing Register and how to apply for medical priority. Her application was reassessed in May and August 2023.
  5. In the circumstances, given that the resident had made a transfer application through the allocations system of the Housing Register and under the Housing Act 1996, the Ombudsman considers that the LGSCO would be better placed to consider any complaint about her rehousing as far as it related to the Housing Register. The resident made a subsequent application for medical priority in May 2023 and a homelessness application in September 2023. There is no evidence that the resident raised a complaint about those aspects but if she did, those complaints would also fall outside the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and would be considered by the LGSCO.
  6. However, we can investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a move and whether the landlord considered the resident for a management move. 

Health

  1. The resident reported how the events complained of affected her and her daughter’s mental health. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and/or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them, and may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by any particular service failure by a landlord.

The resident’s request to move.

  1. While the resident’s request to move fell largely within the function of the Housing Register, rather than the landlord’s management functions, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider how it could assist the resident, as part of it seeking a resolution.
  2. It was reasonable that, in June 2022, the landlord referred the resident to the Housing Register and how to apply to increase her priority. It was also reasonable that the landlord advocated for the resident in September 2023 for increased priority on the housing list. However, while there was no evidence whether this would have impacted on the resident’s priority, this should have been considered sooner.
  3. The Stage 2 complaint response stated that the landlord had considered an internal transfer. According to the landlord’s internal transfer policy, the landlord’s allocation scheme allowed for a “direct transfer” to be made in exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances could include the effect of the fire on the resident, and on her child, given the landlord’s duty towards the resident’s child under the Children Act 2004 to ensure it considers the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when carrying out its functions. A direct let would be a process which falls outside the Housing Register. Its explanation that a direct let would require the resident to bid through the Housing Register therefore appeared to be a contradiction in terms. A direct let is where the landlord allocates a property to the resident, without the resident bidding.
  4. It is noted that the allocations policy set out examples of exceptional circumstances where the landlord might consider an internal transfer or direct let. None of those examples applied to the resident, however they were not comprehensive. It is also noted that there is a significant demand for social housing and, even if agreed, an agreement to offer a direct let may not materialise into a move for the resident in the near or mid-term future.
  5. Nevertheless, the landlord said it would consider an internal transfer in its complaint response as a resolution to her complaint. Moreover, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that a direct let was property considered. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman will make an order that the landlord considers whether there are any exceptional circumstances in this case to depart from its policy, whereby the landlord could consider the resident for a direct let. If it does not offer a direct let, it should provide an explanation.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident’s complaint of 8 June 2022 did not complete the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. We would not normally investigate a complaint in those circumstances, as the landlord has not been given a full opportunity to respond. However, given that, in her complaint of 25 September 2022, the resident referred to her complaint of 8 June 2022, the issues were similar, if not the same, and close in time, the Ombudsman considers that the complaint of 25 September 2022 was a continuation of her June 2022 complaint.
  2. Moreover, the landlord did not provide in its complaint response of 14 June 2022 information about how she could escalate her complaint, which was inappropriate and would have meant she did not know how to. There was no evidence that the resident’s complaint of 8 June 2022 went any further. The resident’s objection to the same person responding whom the complaint was about could have more reasonably been treated as an escalation of her complaint. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not address the resident’s point that the person she had complained about was the same person who responded, or her report that she had been offered an alternative property. Not escalating the complaint deprived the resident of a review of her complaint and any opportunity of putting the matter right.
  3. It was not reasonable that the landlord’s October 2022 Stage 1 response did not refer to the resident’s complaint of 8 June 2022, although the complaints of 8 June and 25 September 2022 were similar. While it was understandable that the landlord considered that the outstanding works were part of her complaint, it was not reasonable that the October 2022 response did not address her point about not wanting to return to the property.
  4. While the resident stated that she was not complaining about the windows, it is noted that the window glass was replaced in June 2022 and this was confirmed by internal emails and an invoice from the contractor, but the works to the rear windows appear to have been outstanding. Its response was to state the works had just been carried out and it did not address any delays.
  5. It was unreasonable that the landlord’s Stage 2 response was delayed, albeit by a short period. It again did not address the resident’s report she had been offered a property. It again advised her to bid through the Housing Register or consider a mutual exchange.
  6. The landlord should have explained the different roles within the landlord and referred her to both our Service and the LGO to escalate her complaint, as not doing so added another layer to her resolving the complaint.
  7. The tone of the complaint response of 14 June 2022, though the writer expressed that he understood the difficulties, was impatient in tone, stating he “would like to reiterate as previously advised” and would have appeared to evidence the frustration that the resident had complained of. The Stage 2 response stated that the complaint team was unable to “influence” a transfer. The resident’s complaint was not directed solely at one team and its response was not resolution focussed. There was little sympathy expressed for the resident in the correspondence provided for this investigation. A fire would be a traumatic experience in any event. The resident was already vulnerable and reported that the fire of April 2022 was triggering and her housing situation was having a detrimental effect on her mental health. She had suffered a fire that led to her having to leave her house and see her possessions damaged, if not destroyed. The tone of the complaint responses did not evidence an appreciation of the resident’s experience. The landlord is referred to our Spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights ARRRoE-22012024-FINAL.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) in relation to examples of the need for empathy.
  8. The resident informed this Service on 18 July 2023 that the landlord had ignored her request for compensation for, presumably, her possessions damaged in the fire. There was no evidence that this had formed part of the complaint. The resident has since informed this Service that the landlord referred her to their insurers. If she wished to take this further, it would be open to the resident to make another complaint. However, in the meantime, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord contacts the insurers on her behalf to ascertain the insurance position and consider if there is any support or assistance it can offer her.
  9. The Ombudsman finds maladministration on the basis that the landlord failed to properly address the June 2022 complaint. Its tone throughout the complaint process lacked empathy, and, if anything, showed frustration. It did not address her complaint that she was unhappy with the housing manager or escalate her complaint when she stated that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. This was frustrating for the resident and meant the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve her complaint sooner and improve the resident landlord relationship. While it tried to seek a resolution, it provided an unclear response in relation to the issue of a direct let.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £300 as follows:
      1. £100 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move.
      2. £200 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
    2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should consider whether to offer the resident a direct let and, if it does not do so, it should provide a reasonable explanation and send a copy of its decision to the Ombudsman.
    3. Within 12 weeks, the landlord should ensure all relevant staff have read our Spotlight Report on attitudes, respect and rights ARRRoE-22012024-FINAL.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) and encourage them to use our e-learning and other resources.
  2. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 12 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation:
    1. The landlord contacts the insurers on the resident’s behalf to ascertain the insurance position and consider if there is any support or assistance it can offer her.
  2. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding this recommendation within 4 weeks of this report.