Lewisham Council (202205928)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205928

Lewisham Council

16 October 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the following:

1. A leak to her property and the subsequent repairs.
2. The decant accommodation.
3. The complaint.

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom flat within a block managed by the landlord’s ALMO. The tenancy commenced in October 2011. A leak from a flat above occurred in July 2021. This initially effected the bathroom, toilet, and kitchen, but by the time of the landlord’s inspection in January 2022 repairs were needed due to the leak and damp and mould was present in the bathroom, toilet, kitchen, hallway, and bedroom.  The resident also reported mould growth on her clothing and on food stored in cupboards. The resident sought assistance from legal advisers, the mayor’s office, and Environmental Health. 

3.     From October 2021 – October 2022 the resident was decanted to a privately owned property, paid for by the landlord on a nightly basis. This property was 17 miles away from the original tenancy, causing inconvenience to the family whose children attended school near their original home. The resident raised concerns regarding the management of the decant accommodation within her later complaints. She was unhappy with the distance of the property, concerned about the behaviour of her neighbour downstairs and, later, reported problems with the condition of the decant property. She was also dissatisfied that the landlord had informed her that a closer property would be available, but this did not materialise into an offer.

The leak

4.     The leak at the original tenancy started on 23 July 2021. This was reported by the resident and the repairs records show that this was affecting her bathroom. The records show that work was undertaken to check that the electrics were safe and that this included repairing the fan. A dehumidifier was provided. No evidence of any action taken by the landlord at this time to trace and remedy the source of the leak has been provided to this Service.  The resident submitted a complaint on the same day asking that the landlord find the source and remedy the problem or move the family.

5.     The landlord’s response on 3 August 2021 confirmed that it had identified the source of the leak to be from flat 13, two floors above the tenant, which was owned by a leaseholder. It confirmed it was in the process of contacting the owners to inform them that repairs were required. Access was yet to be obtained to the flat directly above the resident, but it had arranged to inspect this flat on 6 August 2021 to ascertain whether there were any additional sources of water leaks that were contributing to the problems below. The letter confirmed that the landlord would attend the resident’s home on 11 August 2021 to undertake a survey of the damp and water damage and would then identify all repairs needed to rectify the problem. The outcome of this inspection has not been shared with this Service.

6.     The repairs record stated that a plumber was requested to check leak “affecting flat 3 LH” on 30 September 2021. As there is no other mention of flat 3 throughout the correspondence it is inferred that this was an error, and this should have referred to flat 13. Again, no evidence of the outcome of this visit had been provided.

7.     The next contact is an email from the resident to the landlord and copied to Environmental Health. This is dated 15 October 2021 and referred to a visit that took place the previous day. The resident stated that sewage was leaking through the ceiling and that the situation was getting worse. She expressed her concern that the leak was affecting the structure of the building, set out her concerns about the condition on the family’s health.  She referred to long term damp conditions, poor ventilation and windows that did not seal. She also raised long term problems with mice infestation and anti-social behaviour from youths congregating in the communal stairwells of the block. She requested that the family be permanently moved.

8.     The resident submitted a complaint at stage two of the complaints process on 16 November 2021. She explained that she was concerned about the condition at her permanent home and provided photographs. She believed that the damp was getting worse, reported that coats in the cloakroom were covered in mould, as were the insides of the kitchen units.  By this time the resident was living in the decant property and was returning to access her possessions and to facilitate access for the landlord.

9.     The landlord responded on 11 January 2022. It confirmed that a specialist leak detection contractor had confirmed that the leak emanated from behind the walls of the leasehold property. There had been some uncertainty as to who was responsible for the repair but on 8 November 2021 the landlord confirmed to the leaseholder that they should undertake the repair. The landlord confirmed that the work had been completed and would be inspected by its technical surveyor. Once the landlord had confirmation that the leak was satisfactorily resolved it would arrange the remedial works in the resident’s flat. The landlord accepted that there had been undue delays in resolving the issue and in keeping the resident informed. It apologised for this and for the distress this would have caused and offered compensation of £250.

10. The resident was unhappy with this offer, which she did not believe fully compensated her for the distress, nor did it cover the cost of replacing her damaged coats. The landlord responded on 11 January 2022 and advised that she would need to claim for the damage under her own insurance. It also advised that the compensation would not be increased. The resident believed she had previously been told that the coats would be replaced but she was unable to find the name of the officer who said this.

11. The property was inspected on 21 January 2022. This confirmed that the problem had grown, as works were required in the toilet, bathroom, kitchen, hallway, and bedroom. The works included replacing plaster to several rooms, installing new extractor fan, new flooring to bathroom, redecoration of bathroom and kitchen and applying mould wash to the affected areas in most rooms.

12. On 27 January 2022 the landlord confirmed that there were no more leaks at the property. The repair works would be undertaken and it agreed that the resident could continue to reside in the decant accommodation until this was completed. The repairs were expected to take ten working days and would commence on 31 January 2022. The landlord asked that the resident provided access and offered to either arrange for goods to be stored and secured in a room that the contractor did not need to access, or to stored boxed items in a garage. It also offered to arrange access for the contractors via a key safe to minimize the inconvenience to the resident.

13. The resident responded on 27 January 2022 and explained that she believed the planned repairs to be inadequate. She did not agree to provide access on 31 January 2022 as she wanted all her belongings safely stored before the works began. She was not happy with either option offered as she did not believe either to be sufficiently secure. She did agree to the use of the key safe once her belongings were securely stored. On 3 February 2022 the resident confirmed that she would not be available to provide access until 15 February 2022. She also requested copies of the survey reports.

14. On the same day the landlord confirmed that it had provided a copy of the only report on file. It explained that it had arranged for a storage firm to attend on 7 or 8 February 2022 to provide a quote regarding removal and storage. It asked if the resident was able to facilitate this meeting outside of working hours, or at the weekend. It chased a response on 10 February and on 14 February 2022 emailed the resident again. It noted that the removal firm had advised that the resident had refused to allow the items to be moved. It asked that she get in touch with the landlord so that the repairs were not further delayed.

15. From the correspondence it appears that at this time the resident had instructed solicitors and wanted contact to be via them.  No evidence of any legal claim has been provided. An email dated 14 February 2022 indicated that the team dealing with disrepair would contact the resident’s solicitor to reach an agreement for the works to be undertaken and for the family to move back.

16. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 June 2022. She stated that her Solicitor had continually chased the landlord but had been unable to gain a response. She believed that the work should have been completed six months ago and she should have been moved back. She stated that the situation at her original tenancy was now worse and reported mice infestation as well as the damp and mould.

17. The complaint was considered by the landlord’s Independent Adjudicator and a response sent on 8 July 2022. This found that there had been delays in tracing and remedying the leak and that this had caused significant inconvenience and distress to the resident.  The offer of compensation was increased to £500.

18. In relation to the works to remedy the damage caused by the leak the Adjudicator found that there had been a lack of cooperation and advised the resident that the works could not be completed without access to the property. The letter noted that solicitors had been involved and set out what needed to happen to move things forward:

1. Inspection to get a quote for removal and storage of items and a schedule of works. Access would need to be provided.
2. The residents’ belongings would need to be moved into storage and a key safe installed.
3. Works completed.
4. Family and belongings move back in.

19. Following the final decision, a cleaning firm was instructed with an inspection taking place on 11 August 2022 following which three dates were offered to the resident for the cleaning work to commence with an 8.15 am start time. The landlord confirmed that the additional works were not expected to take longer than anticipated, however it pointed out that this was dependent on the resident providing access. The resident agreed to provide access on 25 August at 9.30am.  Following this appointment, the landlord offered an appointment for removal and storage of belongings on 31 August 2022. The resident refused to provide access for this appointment but stated that the landlord could collect the keys to the property from her to facilitate removal.  

20. It is not known how/when access was facilitated or a key safe installed, however the repairs records show that a job was raised for pest control treatment to be undertaken on 5 September 2022 and the works commenced on 30 September 2022. The works were completed on 11 October 2022 and the family returned home on 24 October 2022.

Decant property.

21. The family was decanted to emergency nightly paid accommodation on 20 October 2021. This accommodation was 17 miles away from the permanent tenancy. There is reference within the landlord’s internal correspondence to a previous offer in borough, but no details have been provided.  The decant property was furnished and therefore the resident left her belongings in the original property. No evidence of any information or advice given to the resident prior to, or at the time of, the move has been provided. 

22. In the resident’s stage two complaint of 16 November 2021, she raised concerns regarding the decant accommodation. She explained that someone had tried her door handle and that the lock to the front door was faulty.  In addition, she raised concerns that the heating and hot water is controlled from the downstairs flat, who had turned this off, until she confronted them.  She reported that she did not feel safe at the property.

23. The landlord responded on 11 January 2022. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns and confirmed that her Housing Officer had been in contact with her to discuss the situation. It explained that the accommodation was not managed by the landlord, but it had offered to speak to the managing agents about the incidents. The letter stated that the resident had not wished to pursue the matter further.

24. The landlord’s response indicated that the decant accommodation was temporary and was all that the landlord had available at the time.  It confirmed it would not be able to offer alternative accommodation and that the family would be expected to return to their permanent address once it was deemed habitable.

25. On 25 January 2022 the resident spoke to the Housing Officer and was advised of the availability of an unfurnished property closer to her original home.  The resident was willing to accept this, however no firm offer materialized. The resident wrote to the mayor’s office complaining about her situation and asking that the offer be honoured.

26. On 27 January 2022 the landlord confirmed that the alternative accommodation was not available until 7 February. Given that it expected the works to be completed at the original tenancy by 10 February or before, it confirmed that the property would not be offered to the resident.

27. This offer of alternative decant property was considered by the Independent Adjudicator at the final stage of the complaints procedure. The Adjudicator concluded that the landlord’s reasoning was sound, although it acknowledged that the resident’s anger at the situation some six months later was understandable.

28. The independent Adjudicator advised that “if additional works are necessary, which will take longer than originally anticipated, Lewisham Homes should consider decanting you to a nearer property”.

29. The resident raised this on a number of occasions following the final decision whilst waiting for the works to commence. The landlord confirmed once it obtained access the works were not extensive and not expected to take longer than originally anticipated and therefore alternative temporary accommodation was not considered.

Complaint handling

30. There were delays at stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure, with the resident requesting escalation on 16 November 2021 and the landlord’s response being sent on 11 January 2022. 

31. The remaining complaint responses were sent within the target timescales set out in the Complaint Handling Code. 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

32. A further complaint has been raised regarding the collapse of the ceiling at the decant accommodation. This matter occurred after completion of the complaints process and has not formed part of this investigation.

33. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) provides that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

34. The resident sought assistance from her Solicitor on the issues under investigation, as referenced in the summary of events above. Issues that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings would sit outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. In this instance, however, there is no evidence that such proceedings have been initiated and the investigation has therefore continued, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution process.

Policy

35. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be attended within 24 hours. It confirmed that this category was for repairs that “remove immediate danger to people, avoid flooding or major damage to the property; make the property secure; restore total failure of sanitation; water or electrical supply, or total loss of heating in winter.  The police stated that the landlord would complete the repair at the time, if possible, of if not, it would make the situation safe and carry out any follow up work as an urgent or routine repair in normal working hours.  The target timescales for these works are listed as 3 days for urgent repairs and 20 working days for routine repairs.

The leak

36.  The leak was reported on the 23 July 2021 and although checks were made to the electrical equipment in the resident’s home, it is clear that landlord had not received confirmation that the leak was resolved until after the resident had been decanted. She and her family were therefore living with the leak and subsequent damp and mould for a period of approximately three months (23 July – 20 October 2021). There is little evidence of any action by the landlord and the resident had to involve the local council’s environmental health team before the landlord arranged to decant the family. 

37. The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in tracing and remedying the leak and that this would have caused significant inconvenience and distress to the resident. It offered £500 compensation as redress for this failing.

38.  As the family were moved to furnished accommodation, they left their belongings in the flat. The belongings continued to be affected by the ongoing going leak which was still outstanding on 8 November 2021 when the landlord confirmed that the leaseholder had been advised that they were responsible for the repair. There is no evidence to show when the work to repair the leak was completed but the landlord confirmed that there was no longer a leak on 27 January 2022.

39. The resident complained that the damp and mould conditions were getting worse on 16 November 2021. There is no evidence of any action to address the issue until the landlord’s inspection of 21 January 2022 which identified the works that were needed at the property. This was followed by difficulties in obtaining access in February 2022 and then a period of inactivity which has been explained as due to a legal claim being commenced by the resident.  It was only following the Adjudicators that action began to access the property and start the required works to enable the family to return home.

40. An internal email indicated that the matter was a disrepair claim however it is not clear whether the resident had actually issued proceedings or had initiated a pre-action protocol for housing condition claim. No evidence of either has been provided. The Complaint Handling Code states that even when a landlord receives correspondence initiating the protocol, it is important that they do not disengage from either the complaints process or the repair issue itself. There is no evidence to show that the landlord continued to seek to resolve the repair issue until the resident escalated the complaint in June 2022. No evidence has been provided to justify the landlord’s inaction from March – July 2022.

41. Whilst it was technically correct for the landlord to advise the resident that she needed to claim for damage to her belongings on her own insurance, the landlord has failed to provide any information to show this information was given to the resident at the time of the decant. She was offered furnished accommodation and was therefore leaving her furniture and goods in the property. The landlord has failed to take this into account when compensating for the impact of its delay.

42. From August 2022 the landlord engaged with the resident to progress access and complete the works. Whilst there were negotiations between the parties that delayed completion of the works, there is no evidence of any fault on the part of the landlord from August 2022 onwards.  

The decant accommodation.

43.  No evidence has been provided regarding any discussion or information given to the resident regarding the decant accommodation and the arrangements for vacating the original tenancy. Internal correspondence indicated that an in-borough offer was made but was declined, and that the decant accommodation 17 miles was the only accommodation available at the time. This was an emergency arrangement that was not expected to last for such a lengthy period, there was no service failure by the landlord for offering accommodation so far from the original tenancy. The available options were limited, and it was acting appropriately by offering alternative accommodation that would remove the family from the situation.

44.  Once in the decant accommodation the landlord responded appropriately to the residents concerns regarding her safety within the flat.  It explained that it was not the managing agent but offered to raise the issues with the agents.  It did not pursue this at the resident’s request.

45. The resident was unhappy that an offer of alternative decant accommodation was discussed but did not materialise.  The landlord provided an explanation as to why this accommodation was not offered and this was a reasonable decision, given the information that was available at the time the decision not to offer it was made.

46. The resident believed that alternative decant accommodation nearer to her home should have been offered following on from the Independent Adjudicator’s decision.  However, the landlord engaged with the resident following the final decision and was in negotiation with her to clear the property to allow the works to begin.  The time frame for the works was as anticipated by the landlord and there is no evidence of any service failure.

Complaint handling

47.  There was a one-month delay in the landlord’s stage two response.  Although the landlord has acknowledged this delay, it has failed to recognise the implications of this delay, nor has it offered any redress for its service failure.  The complaint handling delay had an impact on the repair work as it was only following the stage two response that the landlord arranged an inspection.  Had the stage two response been sent on time, this could have been undertaken sooner.  

48.  There are significant periods of time where there was no evidence of any action. It is clear from the correspondence that some action was taken but the landlord’s record keeping is poor and is not possible to know what was happening.  This is particularly the case in relation to any legal claim, but record keeping appears as an issue throughout the landlord’s handling of this matter. 

Determination (decision)

49. In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman makes the following findings:

1. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the leak and the subsequent repairs.
2. There was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to the decant accommodation.
3. There was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the complaint.

Reasons

50. The landlord has failed to fully recognise the extent and impact of the delays in it undertaking repairs to the leak and in rectifying the damp and mould conditions at the resident’s home. 

51. The landlord’s decisions were reasonable, and fair based on the information available to it at the time its decisions in relation to the decant accommodation were made.

52. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and significant record keeping issues throughout its handling of this matter.

Orders

53. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay additional compensation of £500. This comprises £250 for the delays in completing the works at the resident’s home; £100 for delays in providing its decision at stage two of the complaint’s procedure and £150 for poor record keeping. This compensation is additional to the £500 already awarded.

54. The landlord should comply within four weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

55.  The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its handling of legal correspondence and claims and ensures that this is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code.