Lambeth Council (202334956)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334956

Lambeth Council

1 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Leaks into the property, which caused damp and mould.
2. The formal complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom flat. He lives with his wife and two children. The landlord is a council. The landlord has recorded that the household contains a resident with physical disabilities. The resident has told this Service that his wife has mobility problems and cannot move about easily.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property, and the installations for the supply of services. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It is also responsible for redecoration following repairs where these have damaged the decoration.
The landlord has a combined repairs, disrepair and damp and mould policy. It categorises repairs as either urgent emergency (attend within 2 hours and repair within 24 hours), emergency (repair within one working day), routine 1 (repair within 7 days), or routine 2 (repair within 28 working days). It says urgent emergencies are when a repair is needed if the issue could cause “serious health and safety problems or severe damage if not fixed or made safe”. It says it may not meet its timescales if access is needed into another property, but it can force access in an emergency.
Regarding damp and mould, the landlord’s policy says it will aim to inspect and diagnose the causes of damp within 28 days. It will agree a remedy and write to the resident with an action plan and timeframes. It will also allocate a dedicated surveyor where there is a persistent issue. When disrepair means extensive works are needed, it will consider the circumstances and any vulnerabilities to decide whether it would be appropriate to offer a temporary move, or decant, until the disrepair is resolved.
The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). One of the 29 identified hazards is damp and mould. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards, and their presence can be used to help determine whether a property is fit for habitation.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Damp and Mould ‘It’s not lifestyle’ sets out 26 recommendations for landlords in relation to their handling of damp and mould and complaints relating to this. The landlord has provided a copy of its self-assessment against the recommendations to this Service.
Under its complaints policy, in use at the time, the landlord defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction by a housing resident…where an initial response to their problem has not proven satisfactory.” It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints and respond within 20 working days. It will contact the resident if it requires more time. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints and respond but does not give a timeframe for this. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord implemented a new complaints policy on 1 April 2024 after the current complaint had completed its internal complaints process.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 1.2 a complaint must be defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information. These include developing an organisational key data recording standard to set out the minimum standard to which data must be entered in the landlord’s databases.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair records say that on 30 January 2023 the resident reported rainwater leaking through his bedroom window, however the records say the repair was cancelled. On the same day it raised a repair to ‘make good’ following a leak from above into the kitchen and bathroom. The records say it removed part of the kitchen ceiling but did not say when it did this.
On 22 February 2023 the resident called the landlord about the leak from above, which was still ongoing. He said it was coming from the balcony of the flat above and leaked every time it rained, and it was affecting all their bedrooms. He said the repair was taking too long and he wanted to know where they could stay. He called it again on 26 April 2023 and said the leak had been ongoing for 5 months and he was very dissatisfied with how long it was taking to repair.
The resident reported the leak again on 4 May 2023. The landlord’s records say the resident was vulnerable, and his wife was bed bound. It attended the same day, and said it tried to gain access to the flat above but there was no answer from the neighbour. It said the resident was not able to use the kitchen or bedrooms, a ceiling had been removed and water continued to leak through. It said it needed to arrange access to the flat above with the neighbour.
On 23 May 2023 the resident called the landlord and made a stage 1 complaint which was about:
1. The leak from above into the property.
2. Not being able to use the bedroom as it was wet.
3. That the landlord had not repaired this in over 3 months.
The landlord’s records show it raised a repair for a mould wash on 5 June 2023.
On 20 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response, which said: “We are sorry that you had cause to complain about leaks in your bedroom. We are currently liaising with our roofing contractors and waiting from an update from their director. We will continue to monitor and update you as soon as possible. Your complaint has been upheld.” It also said how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident called the landlord on 19 July 2023. Its record of the call, which has been supplied by the resident, says that he wanted to complain that his kitchen ceiling had not been repaired and he had been without a light. Following the call the landlord escalated his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
On 24 July 2023 in an internal email the landlord said it needed to mould wash and make good the ceiling, but the resident had told it that it needed to fix the leak first. It arranged a follow-on appointment for 13 and 14 August 2023 to replaster the kitchen ceiling. Its records say it tried to gain access to the flat above on 18 August 2023 but there was no answer from the neighbour. It tried to call the neighbour on 24 August 2023 and left a voicemail.
In internal emails on 3 and 6 September 2023 the landlord chased for an outcome to the balcony repairs. Its records say it tried to gain access to the flat above on 8 September 2023, but the neighbour did not open the door. It said in an internal email on 11 September 2023 that the repair to the balcony still needed to be completed. On the same day its records say it repaired the kitchen ceiling and carried out a mould wash.
On 14 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it:
1. Said the resident had escalated the complaint because he had not been contacted by the roofing contractor, as promised in its stage 1 response.
2. Regarding the leak:
  1. Apologised that he had not been contacted.
  2. Said it had instructed its contractor to confirm it had repaired the leak before it attended to the kitchen ceiling repairs.
  3. Confirmed repairs had not taken place as it had not been able to gain access to the flat above.
  4. Said it could not provide any more detail but would continue to escalate the issue.
3. Regarding its handling of the complaint:
  1. Apologised for its delay in response.
  2. Said it had told him it would respond by 23 August 2023 in its acknowledgement of his stage 2 complaint, and that it would contact him if there would be a delay, which it failed to do, and apologised for this. The landlord has not provided a copy of its acknowledgement to this Service.
4. Explained how the resident could contact the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident called the landlord on 14 September 2023, said the leaks had still not been repaired and he was angry, frustrated and upset. Its record says its contractor had had several no accesses into the flat above. It carried out a mould wash on 18 September 2023 in the bathroom. He reported his kitchen wall was water damaged on 17 October 2023.
On 30 October 2023 the landlord’s records say it raised a damp and mould inspection, which it marked as completed. It has not provided any information on when this took place or the outcome to this Service. It then completed a mould wash on 28 November 2023 but did not repair the kitchen wall.
The resident has told this Service, on 8 January 2024, that the leak had caused mould to grow. His wife has had to live in a mouldy room as she cannot easily be moved. His sons’ bedroom also had mould, and their beds cannot be moved away from this or the dripping water due to the size of the room. He was concerned for their health.
On 23 January 2024 and 20 February 2024, the resident called the landlord to chase the repairs. The landlord’s records say it raised another damp and mould inspection on 14 March 2024, but it has not provided any further information to this Service. He called it on 21 March 2024 and reported there was still a leak. He called it again on 25 March 2024 to report a missed appointment to inspect, which the landlord has not provided details of to this Service.
On 24 April 2024 the resident’s solicitors sent a letter of claim to the landlord alleging disrepair. It raised a disrepair inspection for an external expert on 9 May 2024 and this was completed on 21 May 2024. It raised a schedule of works, following the survey, on 21 June 2024 but its records noted that there was still a leak from above which needed to be repaired.
In an internal email on 11 July 2024 the landlord said it had raised a forced entry job for the flat above, but it had no details on whether this had taken place. It said the neighbour was possibly vulnerable due to his age, and “no one has confirmed to have spoken or seen him, which has led to multiple no accesses” (sic)

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of leaks into the property, which caused damp and mould

It is not clear when the leak from the balcony above started. Within his solicitors’ letter of claim they say he first reported this in 2022. From the evidence provided it is clear the landlord knew of the leak in January 2023. Under its repairs policy it should have raised an urgent emergency or emergency repair when the resident reported the leak, but it has not provided any evidence to show that it did this which was a failing. He reported the leak several times between 30 January 2023 and 4 May 2023. Only on the last date did the landlord attend as an emergency. The landlord failed to attend and repair the leak within any of its policy timeframes. This was a significant failing as it knew there were vulnerabilities in the household which also contained children.
Following its visit on 4 May 2023 the landlord said it tried to gain access to the flat above but had not been successful. It noted it needed to get access but took no action which was a failing. Following the resident’s complaint, in its stage 1 response on 20 June 2023 it said it was waiting for updates. By this point at least 5 months had passed yet it showed no signs of actively managing the repair, trying to gain access, or caring about the conditions the resident and his family were living in. This was a substantial failing.
One month later the landlord said it needed to carry out a mould wash. There is no evidence it had inspected the property between 4 May 2023 and 24 July 2023 despite knowing there was an active leak every time it rained. It had not taken a proactive, or even reactive, approach to resolving damp and mould as required under its policy or repairing obligations.
The landlord did try to gain access to the flat above on 18 August 2023, which was positive. However, it has failed to evidence that it had attempted to do so until then, since its initial attempt on 4 May 2023. There is a 3-month period where it appears it took no action to get access to the flat above which is a serious failing. Having not gained access on 18 August 2023, it then delayed until 24 August 2023 to try to call the neighbour and leave a voicemail. It did try to gain access again on 8 September 2023 which was positive.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord explained it had not been able to get access to the flat above, however, it failed to say what steps it had taken or would take to achieve this. This left the resident with no further update and only added to his frustrations. There was no sign that the landlord was taking the matter seriously.
While the landlord carried out mould washes it did not resolve the leak, and so its efforts were well intentioned but futile. It completed a damp and mould survey (not provided) in or after October 2023 but this likely just confirmed it needed to repair the leak. It raised a second damp and mould inspection in March 2024, but again there was no logic to this. The landlord had not provided a resolution or action plan to the resident, as it says it will under its policy, following its first inspection. Despite the resident constantly chasing it, and having received a letter of claim, the landlord took no further action to gain access to the flat above which was a continuing serious failing.
The landlord’s most disturbing admission on 11 July 2024, one and a half years after the resident reported the leak (if not before), was that it had not seen or spoken to the neighbour above, who may have been vulnerable. This demonstrated the landlord’s lack of action over an extended period. The tenancy agreement, and section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, give the landlord a right to access a property to carry out repairs. This right can be enforced by obtaining an injunction from the county court if needed.
Although the landlord referred to a repair having been raised for a forced access in July 2024, it did not have any details on this or whether it had been carried out. It should have considered this option much sooner, and any legal action if required. Instead, it left the resident and his family to live in a property with a leak and mould, a hazard under the HHSRS, for at least one and a half years. Despite knowing of the conditions within the property, there is also no evidence it considered offering a decant, which it should have considered under its repairs, disrepair, damp and mould policy.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. The landlord failed to demonstrate any of these principles. It did not follow its policies and did not resolve the issues. There was severe maladministration, which caused significant distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident and his family. To reflect this impact, an order has been made that the landlord pay £5,300 compensation. This figure amounts to approximately 40% of the rent amount charged between 30 January 2022 and the date of this report.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

The resident made several expressions of dissatisfaction about how the landlord was handling repairs to the leak between January 2023 and 23 May 2023 when it recorded a stage 1 complaint. Under its definition, and that under paragraph 1.2 of the Code, the landlord should have recorded a complaint sooner and having not done so was a failing.
There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint, in breach of its policy and paragraph 4.1 of the Code. It provided its response within 20 working days, which complied with its policy. However, its policy timeframe was not in compliance with paragraph 5.1 of the Code and so this was a failing. Additionally, its response failed to fully answer the complaint which was a further failing. The Ombudsman’s position is that a response can normally be sent detailing the landlord’s assessment of the service provided so far and its proposed plan to put things right. It also failed to offer any redress for its delay in completing repairs which was a further failing.
After the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord said it sent an acknowledgement in line with its policy, however, has failed to provide a copy. It provided its stage 2 response 41 working days after the complaint was escalated. This was an unacceptable delay in breach of paragraph 5.13 of the Code. While its complaints policy does not give a timeframe for stage 2 responses, it said within its response that it had provided a timescale within its acknowledgement and accepted it had failed to keep to this.
The landlord again failed within its stage 2 response to provide a meaningful response or update for the resident and did not fully address the complaint. It also again failed to offer any redress for its failings.
Overall, there was severe maladministration. The landlord failed to comply with the Code, delayed the complaint, failed to acknowledge failings, offer meaningful responses or any redress for its failing. It did not demonstrate the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. This caused further distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this impact an order has been made that it pay £500 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
The landlord has failed to produce, retain or supply a number of documents and pieces of evidence to this Service which has hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. These include:
1. A copy of the stage 1 complaint call or system record. A paragraph was supplied without any context on when or how the complaint was made.
2. A copy of its acknowledgement of the stage 1 complaint if any.
3. A copy of the stage 2 complaint call or system record, which was provided by the resident.
4. A copy of its acknowledgement of the stage 2 complaint.
5. Reports, notes or photographs following damp and mould inspections.
6. Job sheets or photographs following repairs appointments.
7. Any evidence of its attempts to contact the neighbour or gain access to the flat above.
8. Any record of the forced access repair it referred to in an internal email.
In addition, the repair records the landlord has provided are difficult to read, poorly presented and do not contain all information needed to be able to follow the history of all and individual repairs. This can also be seen in the landlord’s internal communication and notes when seeking updates.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management, which caused or contributed to the lack of detail within its complaint responses and caused difficulty for this Service in investigating the complaint. To reflect the additional time and trouble caused to the resident as a result, an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
1. Leaks into the property, which caused damp and mould.
2. The formal complaint.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of leaks into the property, which caused damp and mould, as it failed to repair the leak over an extended period of time. It did not demonstrate that it had tried to gain access to the flat above, did not keep the resident updated and did not taking his household’s circumstances into account. It did not show it was taking the issue seriously or that it wanted to put things right.
There was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint as it did not comply with its policy or the Code. It did not recognise its failings in handling the repairs or offer any redress for this, or its complaint handling failings.
There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management as it failed to provide evidence which would have helped its and the Ombudsman’s investigations. The records it did provide were difficult to understand and lacked important information.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology, from the chief executive, for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £6,100 made up of:
  1. £5,300 for the significant distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its failings in handling the leaks, damp and mould.
  2. £500 for the further distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
  3. £300 for the additional time and trouble caused by its knowledge and information management failings.
3. Confirm whether it has gained access to the flat above and completed repairs to fix the leak. If it has it is to provide a copy of the job sheet, invoice, before and after photographs to this Service. If it has not, it is to write a report detailing what actions it has taken and will take, with timeframes, to gain access.
4. Confirm whether the repairs set out in the disrepair schedule have been completed. If they have not it is to provide a timeframe for completion. If they have been, it is to re-survey the property and provide a copy of the report to the resident and this Service.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, under paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the complaint, to include, but not be limited to:
1. Its handling of leaks where access is required into neighbouring properties.
2. Its approach to gaining access, and how it records and evidences its attempts.
3. Its approach to providing meaningful updates to residents within its complaint responses.
The landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within the stated deadlines.

Paragraph 49 investigation and special inspection

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.
In June 2023 we told the landlord of our intention to carry out 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. As the current complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process before our report was issued, no further orders have been made regarding complaint handling.