Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Lambeth Council (202327732)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327732

Lambeth Council

27 November 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of foul water leaking into his property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a ground floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The landlord holds no record of vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident reported to the landlord that he had suffered a broken ankle and was using crutches at the time of the incident.
  2. On 23 April 2023, the resident noticed staining on his ceiling and notified his neighbour in the flat above who reported to the landlord that when he uses his water it caused a leak into his neighbours flat. On 24 April 2023, the landlord attended and found that it required a CCTV survey of the communal stack pipe. There was a delay in scheduling the further appointment and on 2 May 2023 the landlord attended and carried out power jetting of the pipe. The operative recommended a CCTV survey to investigate a potential collapse of the pipework as there was an ongoing issue.
  3. On 6 May 2023, the resident noticed dirty water coming through his bedroom ceiling on to his bed. He reported the issue to the landlord as an emergency repair. He told the landlord that he had broken his ankle and was having difficulty dealing with the leak. He called the landlord again on 7 May 2023 as the landlord failed to attend to the repair. The resident chased the landlord further up until he raised his complaint.
  4. On 24 May 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He said that the landlord had not attended the report of the leak since he reported it on 6 May 2023. He said that the landlord demonstrated no empathy or urgency to his situation and did not respond appropriately to the emergency repair. He said it had been a month of containing the leak, which affected his sleep and ability to go to work. He said that he had to throw away personal property to protect himself from infection from a contaminated leak.
  5. On 26 May 2023, the landlord carried out a CCTV survey of the pipe and found that a build up of scale was contributing to ongoing blockages. The survey recommended descaling and another CCTV survey to check the integrity of the line. On 7 June 2023, the resident reported that water continued to come through his ceiling on to his bed. He said that his neighbour made him aware that a follow up appointment was booked for 23 June 2023. The resident asked if the landlord’s contractor was aware that his flat was occupied. There is no evidence of a reply from the landlord. On 29 June 2023, the landlord attended to the repair and carried out the recommended works.
  6. On 12 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for the experience the resident had. It confirmed that the works were complete on 29 June 2023 and attached images of the completed repair. It apologised for the delayed repair and for its contractor not attending to the out of hours repair. It said that it did not intend to delay repairs or contravene health and safety issues and agreed that it should have completed the repair at the earliest opportunity. It signposted the resident to make a claim for his personal property from its insurer. It offered £240 for distress and inconvenience.
  7. On 3 August 2023, the resident escalated his complaint as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said that he called the landlord several times to plead for help with the water coming through the ceiling. He said that its call centre staff lacked empathy and respect and because of its misleading advice, he spent a night awake desperately awaiting assistance. He said he had a broken ankle at the time and had to go up to his neighbour to see what was happening. He said he spent 2 months sleeping in damp and humid conditions and the landlord did not care about the situation or his vulnerabilities. He said that the offer of £240 was not adequate and his loss of earnings was not considered. He asked the landlord to reassess the compensation.
  8. On 08 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It apologised again that it had not carried out the repair within its expected timeframe. It explained that its contractor was responsible for approximately 40,000 properties and were not always able to meet their target times. It said that it was sorry to learn that the resident was suffering an injury during the repair period, and it apologised that he felt the call centre staff were not sympathetic to his situation. It said that it had considered each of its failings at stage 1 and found that the compensation of £240 was fair and proportionate.
  9. When the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman, he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to the complaint. He said that the compensation offered by the landlord was not adequate. He wanted compensation because the landlord failures had compromised the healing of his injury and said the landlord should pay for the cost of repairing his ceiling and wall.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation 

  1. Whilst we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects or the property damage and loss of earnings aspects of the resident’s complaint. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court. We can consider general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of foul water leaking into his property

  1. The resident’s lease indicates that the landlord is responsible for repairs to shared pipes. The landlord’s homeowners guide confirms that it is responsible, under the lease, for the repair of the building including shared pipes. It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for the repair.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its timeframes for repairs. It will attend to

a.     An urgent emergency repair within 2 hours and fix within 24 hours.

b.     An emergency repair within 24 hours.

c.      A routine (R1) repair within 7 days or a routine (R2) repair within 28 days

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that a repair is an emergency “when the problem could cause serious health and safety problems or severe damage if not fixed or made safe.”
  2. It is not disputed that there were delays in the repair. In its complaint response the landlord apologised for the delayed repair and the missed out of hours appointment. It offered £240 for the distress and inconvenience caused. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering 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.
  3. Based on the evidence, the landlord first received a report of the leak on 23 April 2024 and resolved the issue on 29 June 2023. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake.
  4. Initially the landlord responded appropriately to the report. It attended within 24 hours, surveyed the issue, and booked an emergency repair. However, it did not attend to the emergency repair until 8 days later, on 2 May 2023. Given the urgency of the repair, and the potential health and safety risk, this delay was inappropriate and represents maladministration.
  5. On 2 May 2023, the contractor reported that the leak was not resolved and recommended a CCTV survey to investigate a potential collapse of the pipework as there was an ongoing issue. Based on this information, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to treat the issue as an ongoing emergency repair. Instead, it raised a routine repair on 5 May 2023. This failure led to a significant delay in the repair and was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  6. On 6 May 2023, the resident reported an emergency repair as foul water was coming through his ceiling. He followed this up the next day but there is no evidence that the landlord upgraded the repair to an emergency. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to respond to this out of hours repair report. This was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to upgrade the repair to an emergency repair.
  7. There is evidence that the landlord was aware of the extent of the issue. On 24 May 2023, in an internal email, the landlord says it attended the neighbour’s property “yesterday and it is really bad. Flat xx been using friends and family members bathroom for past month because when they use theirs it leaks into flat xx and then into flat xx bedroom”. With this information, it would have been reasonable to have treated this repair with urgency. That it did not is a failure of service.
  8. On 26 May 2023, after jetting the pipes, its contractor’s CCTV report referred to ongoing blockages caused by a build up of scale on the pipe work. A follow on descale was not complete until 29 June 2023, despite the resident reporting an ongoing leak into the property on 7 June 2023. There was no evidence that the landlord treated the further report as an emergency or considered the potential risk to the resident. This was inappropriate and caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  9. The landlord attributed the repair delay to the volume of properties that its contractor manages. Ultimately, a landlord’s obligation to repair is with its tenants. The landlord should effectively manage its contractor’s performance to ensure that it meets its repair obligations. This element of the landlord’s complaint response was inappropriate and dismissive of the resident’s experience.
  10. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of foul water leaking into his property. This is because it failed to address the issue within its timescales for an emergency repair. The landlord acknowledged some failings. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident and offer compensation for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused. The Ombudsman would likely have made a finding of severe maladministration but for the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation.
  11. While this compensation went some way to putting things right, it was not sufficient in the circumstances. The evidence shows that the resident went to significant time and trouble to report and chase the issue with the landlord. The resident was particularly vulnerable at the time as he had suffered a fractured ankle which hampered his ability to deal with the leak. This temporary vulnerability heightened the distress and inconvenience he experienced until the landlord completed the repair. An order of compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Remedies Guidance.

Complaint handling 

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints procedure references the same timescales.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 24 working days beyond its timescales and its stage 2 complaint response 7 working days beyond the timescales. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a service failure. The landlord did not acknowledge this complaint handling failure in its complaint responses. The landlord’s failure caused further delay and inconvenience to the resident.
  3. Complaints can provide independent, practical, and unique insights providing an early warning system for significant problems and acting as a catalyst for organisational learning. The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlord’s must acknowledge its failures and set out the actions it has taken or intends to take to put things right. While the landlord identified that the repair delay was due to the volume of its contractor’s work, it failed to set out any actions it would take to address the issue going forward.
  4. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it failed to respond to the resident within its timescales, failed to acknowledge the delay or provide redress to the resident. It also failed to demonstrate any learning going forward to reduce the likelihood of the same failure reoccurring.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of foul water leaking into his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, for the failures identified in this report.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, of £700 compromising:
    1. £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by its repair failures.
    2. £100 for the delay in its complaint handling.
  3. If the landlord has already paid £240 it offered in its complaint response, this can be deducted from the amount.

 

 

Chat to us