Lewisham Council (202126424)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126424

Lewisham Council

 13 June 2023

 

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:
    1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the boiler, drainage, and plumbing system; and
    2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. This is a two-bedroom property.
  2. The resident reported issues with her boiler and a lack of heating and hot water on several occasions between January 2021 and July 2021 and contractors attended on each occasion to attend to the boiler. The resident then submitted a complaint to the landlord in October 2021, due to the fact that the problems were ongoing. She complained about ongoing issues with drainage, a blocked stack pipe and the fact that her boiler was not functioning properly. She informed the landlord that a contractor had advised her that the substantive issue was a problem with the stack pipe, which was causing the problems to her boiler and to the plumbing and drainage issues.
  3. In its complaint response, the landlord advised that it had requested a detailed camera survey of the communal plumbing to address the issues and to implement any recommendations.
  4. The resident then submitted a Stage two complaint in March 2022, as the issues had still not been resolved. At this stage, she also complained about recurrent damp and mould to her property and also about her rehousing situation as she wanted to be rehoused to a three-bed property as her household required an additional bedroom. In her final – Stage three complaint to the landlord, the resident also complained about damage to her washing machine, which she advised was caused by a contractor.
  5. After its final complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £4000 compensation, which she accepted and has been paid to her, and advised her that its contractors would work with her to carry out the repairs and arrange a time to repair the stack.
  6. The resident advises that the repair has not been completed and she still has issues with a lack of hot water/heating, a leaking pipe, a toilet blockage and slow water flow. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident would like the repair issue to be rectified and an additional £1500 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Resident’s Request to be rehoused.

  1. Although this Service acknowledges the resident’s desire to be moved and dissatisfaction with how the landlord has handled this, this Service is unable to comment on the landlord’s application of its allocation process. This matter is better dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme explains that this service may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. As such, if the resident wishes to pursue this issue further, she will need to make contact with the LGSCO.

Scope of Investigation

  1. In her complaint, the resident mentions that the situation with her plumbing, drainage and boiler issues have been ongoing for some years. Whilst this Service acknowledges this, Paragraph 42 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. It would have been reasonable for the resident to complain to the landlord sooner. In line with this, this investigation focuses on matters from January 2021, nine months before the resident raised her complaint with the landlord and dating back to the first report of the repair raised by the resident on the landlord’s repair log.

Dispute Resolution Principles

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right, and
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2.  The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the boiler, drainage, and plumbing system

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will ‘repair the structure and exterior of the property and keep in working order the installations providing services’ to residents’ homes.
  2. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that it ‘will keep in a good and defect-free state of repair’ internal and external common parts of a building. When dealing with repairs inside a resident’s property, the landlord operates a three- tier repairs system on an appointment basis:
    1. Emergency – (to avoid flooding or major damage to property – total loss of heating in winter). The policy states these repairs will be carried out within 24 hours. If the repair cannot be carried out at the time of the initial visit, the landlord will make the situation safe and carry out any follow up work as urgent or as a routine repair within normal working hours.
    2. Urgent – This includes partial failure of sanitation, water and heating systems’. The Policy states urgent repairs will be carried out within three working days.
    3. Routine – This is all other repair work which does not fall into the emergency and urgent categories above. The Policy states that these repairs will be carried out within 20 working days. The Policy explains that ‘occasionally completion of work may fall outside of these times’ such as where follow up work could not be achieved in a single visit ‘coordinating works involving multiple trades or contractors’, ‘inspections to make a diagnosis to initiate a repair or to order materials’, or where it needs to ‘order a specialist material or specialist contractor to complete the repair’ or ‘proactive monitoring of an ongoing and complex repair such as a damp or structural issue’. The policy goes on to say that when the landlord is unable to complete the repair on a single visit, or within expected timeframes, it will ‘proactively keep the tenant updated with progress including arrangements for repeat or rearranged visits’.
  3. The Repairs Policy also states that ‘Tenants must give all authorised employees and agents of the Council reasonable access to their home to inspect or carry out any work. This is a legal requirement and a condition of the tenancy.’
  4. The repair records show that the resident reported issues with her non-functioning boiler to the landlord on several occasions between January 2021 and October 2022. The landlord did attend within their published timescales on these occasions however, it did not resolve the substantive issue of clearing the blockage in the stack pipes, which had led to the leaks, blockages and recurrent boiler issues in the resident’s property. This caused the resident frustration, upset and lack of amenity in respect of heating and hot water, blockages and leaks. The resident also reported a blocked sink and damp and mould in her stage 2 complaint and the landlord addressed this issue by attempting to arrange an inspection via its damp and mould inspector, but the resident declined this as she was seeking compensation prior to repairs being carried out. The resident advised she suffered adverse effect in not being able to stay in her property due to having recurrent issues with lack of hot water and heating. Although this Service understands the resident’s discomfort, it would have been reasonable for the resident to allow the inspection to take place so that the issue could have been investigated and the repairs addressed in a more timely manner.
  5. Although the landlord did attend to the boiler repairs ,there is no dispute that there were delays in the landlord carrying out the repairs to the substantive issue and delays in investigating the root cause of the repair issues. During the complaint process the landlord did go some way to redress the adverse effect on the resident. The landlord apologised for the delays in repairing the communal plumbing issues, stated it had attended to the communal plumbing blockages but that the problem was recurring and stated it had requested a detailed camera survey of the communal problem to highlight any further issues, which they could then address. At the conclusion of its complaints process, it also offered the resident £4000 compensation for time, trouble and loss of amenity, which the resident accepted. However, when the resident also complained to the landlord about damage caused to her washing machine by a contractor, during one of the repair visits, the landlord did not investigate this. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to investigate this issue and offer the resident some options, including possibly claiming on her home contents insurance. It was not appropriate to simply refute the claim that the items had been damaged by one of its contractors. This was unreasonable.
  6. The records show that the landlord made some attempts to attend to the repairs during the complaints process, but the resident refused this on several occasions as she wanted to confirm financial compensation before having the repair attended to. It would have been reasonable for the resident to allow access to contractors to allow the repairs to be completed in a more timely manner. This may have resulted in the repairs being carried out sooner.
  7. Finally, the resident has stated that the repair issues have not been resolved. The landlord has advised this Service that it attempted to contact her in February 2023 to install CCTV to the resident’s stack pipe inside her property, to attempt to  resolve the issues but that she has not responded. It may have been reasonable for the landlord to make further attempts to contact the resident. The resident  has asked for an additional £1500 compensation to cover time off work, the cost of employing a plumber and for her damaged flooring. Whilst it is a failing that the repair has still not been completed, the resident would reasonably be expected to allow the landlord’s contractors access to her property to address the repair issues. Further, this Service believes it would be reasonable for the resident to consult her home contents insurance for her damaged floor as  flooring would be considered to be a personal belonging, and thus the resident’s responsibility.
  8. Taking into account the information above, the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the adverse effect experienced by the resident. It apologised for the delay in repairs and offered the resident £4000 compensation, which she accepted. It also tried to arrange appointments to remedy the issue in the resident’s home and was not always given the opportunity to do so. The repairs to the resident’s stack pipes have still not been completed and the resident reports that the issues with her plumbing, drainage and boiler are still ongoing. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to make more attempts to contact the resident to address and seek to remedy the substantive issue of the blocked stack pipes in the resident’s property. However, the resident has not provided access to the landlord to carry out these repairs, so it is possible that the repairs could have been completed in a more timely manner, had access been granted.
  9. Additionally, although it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of damage to her washing machine and to signpost her to her home and contents insurance policy, the resident waited some months to report this issue to the landlord. This would have likely impacted the resident’s ability to pursue a claim. It would have been appropriate for the resident to have reported this as soon as practicably possible after she noticed damage to her washing machine.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord operates a three stage complaints policy
    1. Stage 1 – where a written response will be issued within 10 working days
    2. Stage 2 – where a written response will be issued within 20 working days
    3. Stage 3 – where the complaint is seen by an independent adjudicator and a written response will be issued within 20 working days.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman Service Complaint Handling Code advises that there should be a two stage complaints process and the landlord’s policy is not in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. This Service’s Complaint Handling code states that ‘two stage complaint procedures are ideal. This ensures that the complaint process is not unduly long’. The landlord’s three stage complaints process would have meant that the resident had to wait at least a further 20 working days before she was able to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process and bring her complaint to this Service.
  3. Initially, the resident submitted her Stage 1 complaint on 19 October 2021 and received a response on 10 November 2021. This is seven working days outside of the landlord’s published time scales and while this was not in line with the prescribed approach, this would not have had much of an impact. At stage 3, however, the resident submitted her further complaint on 26 March 2022. This was not acknowledged as a Stage 3 complaint until 27 June 2022, after this Service contacted the landlord to ask it to respond to the resident’s Stage 3 complaint.
  4. The landlord provided its Stage 3 response on 29 July 2022. This is a failing on the part of the landlord. The landlord did not comply with its own complaints policy until this Service intervened and the resident waited 84 working days for a Stage 3 response. This extended wait caused the resident frustration, time and trouble and resulted in the substantive issue being extensively delayed. Although the landlord’s independent adjudicator did write to the resident on 19 July 2022, to advise that there would be a delay to the complaint response, this does not account for the delay of over four months. Furthermore, the landlord did not address the resident’s Stage 3 complaint, until it was asked to do so by this Service. In total from submitting her first complaint  on 19 October 2021, to receiving the landlord’s final complaint response on the 29 July 2022, the resident waited 196 working days  for the complaints process to conclude. This is an extensive delay and a failing on the part of the landlord. This caused the resident additional frustration, time and trouble and delayed her being able to escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman.
  5. Furthermore, the landlord did not apologise to the resident for the length of time it took to resolve her complaint, nor did it advise of any lessons learned from the complaint handling issues in this case. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to apologise to the resident and to advise her of learnings which addressed the complaint handling failures to ensure this did not reoccur. As such, a finding of maladministration is made, as well as orders for redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the boiler, drainage, and plumbing system.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In recognition of the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation. It should do this within four weeks of this report and should update this service once it has done so.
  2. In recognition of the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident in writing. It should do this within four weeks of the report and should share the letter with this Service.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its complaint handling policy and procedure, in particular its three-stage complaint process, in order for it to align with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The landlord to make another attempt to arrange for works to take place. It should complete these works within eight weeks.
  3. The landlord to pay the resident the £4000 compensation if it has not already done so.