Lewisham Council (201913042)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913042

Lewisham Council

24 June 2021

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 handling of attempts to access the resident’s property to resolve an issue with the fire panel, and its response to his subsequent formal complaint.

Background

2. The landlords’ repair policy states that where there is a possible health or safety risk, works would be completed the next working day.
3. The landlord’s complaint policy details a three-stage process, with the final stage being a review by the Independent Adjudicator.

Summary of events

4. On 17 July 2020.the resident received a letter from the landlord explaining that its fire assessment team had noted that the fire panel within the communal area had flagged up a fault that may lay within the resident’s property, and that would compromise the safety of the building in the event of a fire. The letter said that the landlord had attended the property, although the space where the date should have been entered for this had been left blank. As the resident had not been at home, an appointment had been made to re–attend. Again, the space where the date should have been filled in was blank.
5. The letter went on to emphasise the importance of addressing the fault, as in the event of a fire the alarm system might not activate and the outcome of this could be fatal. If the landlord was unable to gain access to the resident’s property it may have to escalate the matter to its tenancy teams which could affect the resident’s tenancy. It provided a number to call should the resident have any questions or wanted to discuss the letter.
6. The resident called the out of hours repair line, and an operative attended within two hours and addressed the issue.
7. On 20 July 2020 the resident made stage one complaint to the landlord about the matter. In this he said that he was very alarmed aby the letter and so contacted the landlord’s out of hours team, who made arrangements for an engineer to visit the property around two hours later, and resolved the matter by changing the batteries in the device.
8. The resident said that he was dissatisfied that the dates on his letter were left blank, especially as his neighbour’s letter had the dates filled in, with the appointment date given as 24 July 2020. He stated ‘Being that the contents of the letter amounted to severe action being taken against the claimant if Lewisham homes fire assessment team were unable to gain access to the claimant’s property possibly leading to lock change, it is completely unacceptable that the dates on the letter left for the claimant was left blank…Therefore, it is clear that the failure of Lewisham homes assessment team to ensure that the letter left for the claimant was fully dated as was the one left for his neighbour amounts to poor service, utter negligence, sheer incompetence and gross misconduct which caused undue mental health harm and overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant’s already fragile mental health condition which could have been easily avoided had Lewisham home fire assessment team ensured due diligence in ensuring the dates on the letter left for the claimant were duly completed and fully dated.’
9. He concluded that this amounted to harassment, discrimination and bullying which had led to severe mental health damages, anxiety and panic attacks, mental health distress and overwhelming psychological distress for which he was seeking compensation.
10. The landlord’s stage one response dated 28 July 2020 set out that a routine fire assessment was carried out to the communal area on the 17 July 2020, which identified a possible fault to the alarm meaning that access was required to the resident’s property. As it was unable to carry out these works that day a letter was left advising that access was required. The landlord apologised that there was no appointment date on the letter as this section had been left blank. This had been investigated by its Electrical Works Supervisor who could confirm that the operative that visited had mistakenly left blank the appointment date, and this error had been addressed with the operative to ensure that full information was provided in future.
11. The resident’s stage two complaint dated 28 August 2020 explained that he did not accept that leaving the dates blank was a mistake, because his neighbour’s letter was filled in. He felt the fact that his letter was not filled in was negligence, sheer incompetence, gross misconduct, an act of sabotage, harassment, discrimination and bullying. He felt that in leaving the letter blank the operative had effectively put his health and safety at risk, which the landlord’s apologies did not address. He said that had he not contacted the landlord himself, there could have been significant consequences. He explained that he suffered from chronic depression, severe anxiety and panic attacks, along with overwhelming psychological distress. He again asked the landlord for compensation.
12. The landlord provided a stage two response on 2 September 2020 reiterating the information that had been provided in the stage one letter, apologising for the appointment date being left blank but concluding that it was satisfied that this was a genuine oversight, which had been further addressed with the staff member to ensure that it was avoided in future. It referred the resident to stage three of the complaint process, the Independent Adjudicator.
13. On 4 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to say that it had failed to properly address his complaint, and in particular had not explained why the operative was able to date the letter left for his neighbour but not his. He said that the operative’s actions had been intentional.
14. The landlord explained that the matter had been considered at stage two and his email had been reviewed, but it did not feel that it could help any further, and so again referred him to stage three of the process, the Independent Adjudicator.
15. The resident sent his complaint to the Independent Adjudicator on 8 September 2020. The Independent Adjudicator replied saying that due to an injury they were unable to investigate cases at that time, and in light of these unique circumstances, referred the resident to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

16. The resident has stated in his complaint to this Service that the landlord has failed to address why his letter was left blank. He states that most notably, the response dated 2 September 2020 did not explain why the operative was able to date the letter left for the neighbour but failed to date the letter left for him. He does not agree that this was an error, and feels that the date was left off intentionally to compromise his health and safety, harass and discriminate against him.
17. He said that this resulted in his health and safety being placed in jeopardy and unnecessary risk, and amounted to ‘…sheer incompetence, utter negligence and gross incompetence which cannot be adequately addressed by apologies that simply amount to lip servicing.’ The resident states that he is therefore seeking compensation for ‘…the overwhelming psychological distress suffered as a result of this incident.’ He has explained that he is vulnerable and suffers from a long-term mental health condition.
18. While the resident clearly feels very strongly about this matter, there is no evidence that demonstrates that his letter being left undated was anything other than a mistake on the part of the operative. The fact that the neighbour’s letter was dated does not mean that a mistake could not then have been made with his. It is not clear why the resident feels that the operative would harass, discriminate against, or bully him, and there is no indication that he and the operative had any contact prior to the letter being left.
19. The Ombudsman was very sorry to hear of the adverse affect the situation had on the resident, and the distress he has experienced because of this. However, this Service does not consider it proportionate for the landlord to pay compensation on the basis that the dates were not filled in, and finds the landlord’s acknowledgment of the mistake, apologies, and raising it with the operative in question were reasonable and proportionate actions to address the issue.
20. While no appointment date was given on the resident’s letter, the Ombudsman would assume this would have been the same date that the neighbour’s letter gave: 24 July 2020. As the issue with the fire panel would fall under the repairs policy criteria of there being a possible health or safety risk, the Ombudsman would have expected the works to be carried out the next working day, which would have been 20 July 2020. Therefore, the follow up appointment would have been four days late under this policy.  
21. As it was, the resident contacted the landlord on 17 July 2020 and it attended and resolved the issue. While the Ombudsman understands the resident’s point that had he not contacted the landlord this would not have occurred, it is also clear from the letters left for both him and his neighbour that the landlord was planning to re-attend (albeit four days late) to carry out the work.
22. In relation to the complaint handling, the Ombudsman would usually expect a landlord to progress a complaint through its full complaint process before referring to this Service. However, given the extenuating circumstances of the Independent Adjudicator’s injury, it was not wholly unreasonable to refer to this Service after stage two of the process.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord in relation to this complaint.

Reasons

24. The fact that the dates were missed from his letter but included in his neighbour’s is not evidence of bullying or harassment. The Ombudsman is satisfied with the landlord’s explanation that this was a mistake and finds no basis on which to order compensation. The issue with the fire panel was rectified that same day.

Recommendations

25. The landlord should review with its relevant contactors/operatives timeframes for booking appointments where there is a possible health or safety risk to ensure that this is done in the correct timeframe. 
26. The landlord should consider what contingency plans it can put in place should there be a future occurrence of the Independent Adjudicator being unable to carry out their role.
27. The Ombudsman notes that some recommendations were made in the most recent fire risk assessment, dated 6 June 2020. The landlord should satisfy itself that these have all been completed.