Lewisham Council (202302915)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202302915
Lewisham Council
30 September 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:
- Reports of cracks to the property and window repairs.
- A request for kitchen and bathroom upgrades.
- The complaint.
Background
- The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and occupies a 3-bedroom end of terrace town house with his brother. The tenancy commenced in July 2015. The resident advises that his brother has heath conditions including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma.
- In March 2020, the landlord contacted the resident explaining it had completed monitored the cracks in the property and obtained a structural report. This said the property did not require underpinning at the time and was not thought to be subject to subsidence. The report also recommended a further structural survey to prepare a specification for structural repairs and, after this, it would look to complete external works including the installation of new double-glazed windows. It added that the property was added to an external works programme with an aim to commence in July 2020.
- In April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord explaining that the ceiling in the bathroom and toilet floor needed replacement, and the windows were beyond repair and that these were due to underlying structural issues. He said that previous operatives who had attended had sent reports that these issues were due to movement. The landlord said it now aimed to get prioritised works completed by end of March 2022 and that the property was prioritised for the 2021/22 programme, which appeared to include kitchen and bathroom upgrades. The same day the resident said he was experiencing problems with internal works on the property due to movement. The landlord responded that it had passed on all structural reports to the new contractor who would look into any movement.
- In February 2022, the resident reported that the glass in one of the front bedroom sash windows had fallen out and smashed. Works orders were raised to make the window safe and measure up for replacement which took place on 14 February 2022. On 14 July 2022, another sash window in the front bedroom was boarded up by the landlord.
- On 30 October 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said the landlord was on notice of the disrepair but had not addressed the issue, and he felt that it had been negligent. On 9 November 2022, the resident advised that he was told by the landlord that kitchen and bathroom upgrades had been cancelled until external works were completed. The resident wished to claim for stress and for the time that the property was not secure or waterproof and for the fact that having boarded-up windows prevented him from adequately heating the house. On 10 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord explaining the household had to stay with friends and family over Christmas because they could not afford to heat the house.
- The landlord acknowledged this as a stage 1 complaint on 19 January 2023. Subsequently, it issued a stage 1 response on 30 January 2023. It upheld the complaint and the resident’s requests for outstanding remedial works. It recognised that it failed to progress these works in March 2022 as he was told in April 2021. It added its special projects team would see the works through to completion and its contract manager had contacted the resident and arranged for a structural engineer to inspect the property on 7 February 2023. After this, it would contact the resident regarding required programmed works and when they would be carried out. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience the situation had caused and offered £150 compensation.
- On 6 February 2023, the resident chased the landlord as he had received no confirmation for the appointment on 7 February 2023. On 13 February 2023 it acknowledged the complaint had been escalated to stage 2. A structural survey took place around 16 February 2023. The report noted a crack in the flank wall, which was visible both externally and internally, broken front windows in bedroom on the first floor, damp in corner, and the window frame appeared to be rotting. It also noted a cracked windowsill at ground floor reception room, cracks through airbricks at rear bedroom, water staining on ceiling, and evidence of movement between the property and the neighbouring ones. The resident raised concerns that the surveyor was working from a report prepared in 2015 and not from the most recent survey report. He continued to ask when the windows and rotten frames would be addressed and felt that a year for one sash window and almost 7 months for the other was a considerable amount of time for a window to be boarded up, and very costly over the winter. He advised he was paying £80 per week to try and heat his house. The resident continued to chase in March 2023, subsequently referring his complaint to the Ombudsman on 27 March 2023.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 April 2023. It advised the resident’s property had been prioritised for improvement works, and previous survey/engineer reports had been passed onto its consultants. In regard to the window repairs, it was unable to replace the glazing given the state of the window frame so it had asked if its repair team would consider replacing the window in isolation ahead of the major works being progressed. It aimed to address these issues before the following winter. With regard to a timescale for major works, it said it was unable to give a specific timescale but hoped to have a scope and cost by the end of April 2023 in order that it could instruct its contractor around mid-May 2023. It apologised for the level of service it had delivered to date and acknowledged it fell short of what it aimed to provide.
- On 21 and 24 April 2023, the landlord inspected the bedroom windows and frame. On 11 May 2023, the resident asked to escalate his complaint and set out the issues that were unresolved. He said the structural issue related to 2017, that the bedroom windows had been without glass for 12 months, and that the property was unsecured due to rotten window frames that had to be screwed shut. He added the last inspection was 2 weeks earlier by contractors who said no work could be done seeing as the windows were beyond repair. The resident added the kitchen, bathroom and toilet upgrades which had been previously inspected and agreed were now on hold due to disrepair issues. He reiterated that his heating bills were high, and alleged his property did not meet the decent homes standard and so he was forced to make alternative arrangements for accommodation during most of the previous winter.
- On 12 June 2023, the landlord issued its stage 3 response. It upheld the complaint and said it should have had a clear understanding of the issues, and a plan to resolve them, well before the resident complained in late 2022. It recognised that as a result of the delays, the resident had incurred additional heating expenses and had had to move out altogether during winter 2022/23. It apologised that, overall, it had taken too long to investigate and resolve structural issues, as well as failing to replace broken windows, which had resulted in delayed upgrades to the kitchen and bathroom and recognised that the situation had caused the resident actual financial loss and stress and inconvenience which would have been avoided had the works been carried out much earlier. In particular, it acknowledged that it was not acceptable to defer replacing the windows given their state, as the landlord’s cost and convenience did not outweigh its tenants’ needs for controlled ventilation, light, and safety. It offered compensation of £900 (inclusive of £150 awarded at stage 1) and committed to progressing the resolution of the structural issues without any further delay, and to replacing all nonfunctioning windows in the shortest possible timescale, outside the major works project if necessary. It added that this may involve further appointments for precise measuring, and set expectations for the manufacture and installation lead time as being at least 3 months.
- The landlord carried out a number of actions and works between June 2023 and the present, including in December 2023 a CCTV drain survey and drain de-scaling, structural brickwork stitching and installation of HeliBar steel reinforcing bars to strengthen and stabilise brickwork on the side elevation. New windows were installed in January 2024, roof works commenced in March 2024, and kitchen and bathroom upgrades were completed by September 2024.
- The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the matter and its final response. He noted it was only until a single point of contact had been arranged by the landlord in June 2023 that things progressed. As a resolution, the resident wants further compensation. He added that his heating costs during the period from when the windows were broken to when they were replaced had been excessive, £80-90 per week, and the landlord’s offer did not wholly take this into account.
Assessment and findings
The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation
- The Ombudsman recognises the resident’s comments that the structural problems date back to 2017 and that there were longstanding issues with the property. While this may be the case, the Ombudsman has seen that the resident formally complained to the landlord on 30 October 2022. In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Accordingly, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from October 2021 up until the landlord’s final responses and commitments that it made.
- The resident stated that the landlord’s handling of the works and upgrades had affected the household’s health and caused stress. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on the household’s health.
- Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and therefore, should the resident wish to pursue this matter, he should do so via this route. This investigation will therefore consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and legal obligations, and whether it acted fairly in the circumstances.
The landlord’s handling of reports of cracks to the property and window repairs
- In line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), the landlord should keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house. The repairs guide sets out that the landlord is responsible for brickwork and concrete repairs and reglazing of windows. Emergency repairs included those that remove immediate danger to people and avoid major damage to the property should be responded to within 24 hours. It aims to complete an emergency repair at the time, if it can, otherwise it would make the situation safe and carry out any follow-up work as an urgent or routine repair. The landlord aims to complete urgent repairs in 3 working days and routine repairs in 20 working days. It adds that where it is unable to complete a repair on a single visit, or within its expected timeframes, it will proactively keep the resident updated with progress including arrangements for further visits.
- Following a report from the resident on 14 February 2022 that the glass had fallen out of one of the two-bedroom sash windows, the landlord raised a work order to make this safe and took measurements for a replacement. This was appropriate as it took this action on the same day. Around 12 July 2022, the resident reported the glass had come out of the frame in other front bedroom window due to the wood rotting. It promptly raised another work order was on 12 July 2022 to make safe the other sash window, however boarded up this window on 14 July 2022. This was outside its 24-hour aim to make safe. While this initial approach of boarding up both sash windows in the front window was reasonable, the landlord should have proactively sought to arrange reglazing at the earliest opportunity given that its repairs policy states that it will proactively keep the resident updated about progress on follow-up work.
- The reason that reglazing of the sash windows was not carried out promptly was that the frames were, as acknowledged by the landlord, rotten, and these windows formed part of structural repairs which it planned to undertake as major works. Nevertheless, the landlord could have considered an alternative such as temporary glazing. This did not happen nor did the landlord carry out the work on the windows in a reasonable time. Indeed, the resident continued to complain in October and November 2022 and in January 2023 about how the lack of the two sash windows affected his household. The landlord did not replace the sash windows until January 2024. This was almost two years after the glass fell out of the first sash window and was a considerable period which included three periods of winter cold weather. This was a serious failing on the part of the landlord.
- While the landlord indicated in its stage 2 response in April 2023 that it would attempt to carry out window replacement outside the major works, this did not happen. The resident ultimately had to wait for major works to commence before the windows could be replaced. Although the landlord recognised the adverse effect on the household and apologised for this and made an attempt to put things right, this did not go far enough. The offer of compensation did not wholly take into account the increased heating costs that the resident was obliged to expend during three cold periods with boarded windows. Additionally, it was concerning to hear that the resident had made his own arrangements to find alternative accommodation with family and friends. In the circumstances, the landlord could have considered whether alternative accommodation would have been reasonable given the conditions the boarded windows created, particularly as the resident expressed that the household would have to leave.
- In any case, the landlord acknowledged that the repair took much longer than it should have done and recognised the impact the boarded-up window had on the household. Indeed, internal landlord emails state it “cannot see how we can justify the length of time his windows have been boarded”. The resident had to pursue the landlord multiple times to progress matters, which was unreasonable for the resident to have to do, and hence a severe failing on the part of the landlord. The Ombudsman appreciates that the major works were of a complex nature and also why the landlord wished to carry out window replacements as part of major works, and notes that the landlord did attempt to manage the resident’s expectations in its stage 2 and 3 responses. However, considering the time taken to complete these works and the adverse effects on the resident’s household whilst it waited for the works to be carried out, its remedy was insufficient.
- Following the landlord’s final (stage 3) response in June 2023, the resident was entitled to believe that the windows would be done in the shortest possible timescale, since the landlord stated this, also indicating that this could potentially be achieved by carrying out the window work outside the major works project, in which case the window work would be carried out in at least 3 months from June 2023, hence in September 2023 or shortly thereafter. However, the windows were ultimately not relaced until January 2024, over 4 months after it said this could be achieved. This was a severe failing on the part of the landlord.
- Also in June 2023, the same day as its final response, the landlord advised the resident of a 24 week wait. The resident queried this and said he had already been waiting 12 months. Subsequently, in July 2023, a window survey was carried out and also a drone survey of the roof. The landlord’s policy notes that completion of work may fall outside of its target response times when certain conditions apply, one of which is ‘where a repair requires us to negotiate access through a property owned or managed by a third party’, and this condition applied in this case as such access was needed for the erection of scaffolding. The Ombudsman does recognise the challenges the landlord faced to carry out the structural works. However, it should have been more proactive and treated the repairs with more urgency than it did.
- The resident continued to chase in October 2023 and November 2023. He believed the landlord understood that there were health and safety issues for the household with the windows being boarded or screwed shut but, despite this, no meaningful action had been taken for a prolonged period of time. In November 2023, the resident reiterated that the landlord had failed in its obligations under section 11 of the Act and its amending Act, Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. He stressed the property was not fit to live in with excessive cold due to the boarding of the windows and would not meet the Decent Homes Standard. While the resident had use of the rooms for most of the year, in the various winter periods the front bedroom would have likely been unusable given the absence of glass in both front sash windows and merely boarding instead.
- On 9 November 2022, the resident said that he was told by the landlord that the kitchen and bathroom improvements had been cancelled until external works such as windows and cracks were addressed. He also advised that the property was unsecured, not waterproof, and that any attempt to heat the property was unsuccessful due to the lack of windows. The landlord did not respond to this which led to him chasing again on 10 January 2023, when he explained the household had had to stay with friends and family over Christmas as they could not afford to heat the property. Considering the length of time the landlord was on notice with regard to this issue, it is unclear why the landlord did not either fast-track the major works in order to enable the window repairs to be carried out, and if this was not possible, why it did not consider a decant of the household.
- It appears that the earliest the landlord considered a decant was in April 2023 but, not having made such arrangements at that time, it did not then review on a regular basis thereafter the issue of decanting. It appears to have considered that, until a decant was certain, it would proceed on the basis that the household would remain in situ while the works took place. This might have been acceptable, had the works been carried out shortly after it became aware of the detriment being caused to the resident and his household. Indeed, on 3 December 2023, the resident said to the landlord that given previous disrepair issues, the property should be ‘priority one for a decant’. This should have prompted the landlord that the repairs required were significant and could not wait any further, or that a decant may needed be carried out.
- It is clear to the Ombudsman that the landlord has not provided full records. A number of actions such as window replacement, scaffolding, and roof and insulation works did not feature in the landlord’s repair logs. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. In this case, the inadequate record-keeping has hindered this Service from being able to fully ascertain what took place and, therefore, the full extent of the detriment. In line with our Spotlight report “Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) – on the record” of May 2023, the landlord should have a robust record-keeping system to ensure appropriate recording and handling of its delivery of operational services, and of complaints.
- Further, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord provided updates to the resident regarding the outstanding work, which may also be indicative of poor record keeping. The landlord missed opportunities to reassure the resident that it was taking ownership of the works and taking proactive steps to address his concerns. This would have established trust between the landlord and the resident
- It is noted that after July 2023 the landlord’s single point of contact, the special contract manager, appeared to carry out frequent inspections to the property. This was encouraging to see as it demonstrated that the landlord was taking some steps to engage with the resident. Nevertheless, there is limited information to suggest that prior to its stage 3 response in June 2023 that it kept the resident adequately informed of its progress, and the resident was left chasing the repairs.
- The Ombudsman recognises that this was clearly a resident who wanted the structural works and window replacements to be carried out in good time and to a good standard, and he made concerted efforts to resolve matters via the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord did not make an offer of compensation in its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman does recognise that the landlord at this time operated a three-stage complaints process. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman encourages landlords to put things right at the earliest stage. Therefore, the landlord should have considered making a financial remedy at this stage.
- The resident has confirmed that the works including HeliBar steel reinforcing bars, window and door replacement, and structural brickwork were carried out in or before January 2024. It is noted that this was a considerable time, well over a year, from the first reports which were made in October and November 2022. While there was no prescribed time for this work as such, the landlord appropriately recognised in its stage 1 response that it failed to progress outstanding works in March 2022 as the resident had been advised would be the case in April 2021. This clearly demonstrates that the resident was waiting for a considerable period of time for these works and this Service notes that the resident had reported structural issues including the windows long before 2021. This would have caused significant distress to the resident as the property did not meet the decent homes standard during the course of the complaint, and likely it did not before the complaint.
- Given that structural issues such as those involved in this case can take a long time to investigate, monitor, and address, it is unlikely that they could have been concluded within 20 working days for routine repairs as referred to in the repair policy, but it is clear that the landlord’s failure to take prompt follow up action after the structural survey of mid-February 2023 caused a significant delay. A further survey was carried out in July 2023, causing further delay as the landlord was already aware of the issue and how to resolve it. Further, the evidence indicates that had the resident not taken the time and trouble to chase the landlord, these repairs may have remained outstanding.
- There has been a long delay in the landlord addressing the structural issues at the property, which it has been unable to explain. The evidence available suggests that the structural issues greatly impacted the property in terms of causing further repair problems such as rotten window frames, uneven flooring and so on, which the resident reported in his communications with the landlord. Additionally, the resident has explained that he has experienced a great deal of stress due to the issues detailed above, and this has impacted his health. He has said that he had to keep the heating on at the property a lot of the time due to the lack of windows, and that he was worried about the structural safety of the building. He has been extremely frustrated by the lack of action from the landlord and its poor communication on the matter He advised the works only gained traction after the special contract manager got involved around July 2023. However, this was after its internal complaints process had come to an end. As identified in this report, the resident spent a huge amount of time and trouble pursuing the matters which should not have been necessary.
- While the landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the failings in its repair process, this has not ‘put things right’ for the resident. Therefore, this Service has made orders to remedy this complaint. The compensation made by the landlord did not wholly take into account the loss of heating and impact that the situation had on the household, despite the resident having reported to the landlord his stress and his brother’s health condition as well as the fact he had had to seek alternative accommodation during winter 2022. Further, in the landlord’s submissions it said it was not aware of any household vulnerabilities. However, the resident advised this service that his brother has COPD and asthma. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to update its records.
- The Ombudsman’s role includes assessing whether any remedy offered by the landlord was sufficient to put things right for the resident. Our remedies guidance suggests compensation awards of over £1,000 for failures where there have been serious failings by the landlord. In this case, while the landlord offered an apology and compensation across its formal responses for its handling of the planned works, considering it failed to carry out works within the financial year as previously promised, its remedy offer did not go far enough to put matters right and to reflect the distress the household experienced. It should have offered further compensation to reflect the distress, including for the resident’s additional heat costs, which could be established by examination of the resident’s utility bills for the period and for the corresponding period prior.
- The resident advised this Service that, at the time, he used top-up meters to pay his utilities. Additionally, the resident reported costs of around £80 per week to heat the property in the absence of adequate windows in the front bedroom. Throughout the complaints process the landlord did not make efforts to offer support or to offer appropriate reimbursement for these increased heating costs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made an effort to establish the cost to the resident of the additional heating and to pay corresponding compensation during the months the works would remain outstanding. Instead, in December 2023 it offered £100 and £50 in respect of the resident’s energy costs to support him through the winter period. The Ombudsman does recognise the landlord’s attempt to support the resident, however this did not go far enough. As this was after the resident exhausted its complaints process, it may have come across as an afterthought. The resident considered this offer ‘disrespectful’ and said it did not truly reflect the financial impact the landlord’s inaction had caused.
- It is also noted that in the resident’s initial complaint of 4 February 2022, he said “due to this issue not being treated correctly we are unable to heat our home causing financial difficulty”. While the landlord briefly acknowledged this in its formal responses, it did not take any meaningful action. This was a missed opportunity to provide the resident with appropriate support. Indeed, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord sought to establish the facts in relation to the resident’s statement or if further support was needed. It would have been reasonable, given the suggested financial impact, for the landlord to have ensured that appropriate referrals for possible support or financial assistance were made. This did not happen.
- Further, the landlord’s compensation, reimbursements and remedies procedure states it should consider, on a case-by-case basis, reimbursing a resident where an incident has resulted in their incurring additional costs such as additional electricity usage. It also notes that for unusually high claims, residents should be asked to supply meter readings or copies of previous energy bills to support the increased cost being claimed. A recommendation has been made.
- The landlord’s procedure also suggests awards of up to £50 per month for a low impact service failure. While not diminishing the effect this situation had on the household in this case, namely broken windows which had been made safe and boarded up, it may be considered a low impact service failure. However, these windows were not replaced until January 2024, almost 2 years from when first reported, a substantial period of time. This issue carrying on for such a prolonged period resulted in significant distress and inconvenience which means that the service failure in respect of the windows was not low impact.
- With regard to the structural issues, in March 2024, scaffolding was erected and roof work – which included new loft insulation and external decoration to front and rear of property – started in April 2024. While the resident has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the structural works have now been completed, these should have completed considerably sooner.
- Overall, while the landlord acknowledged some of its failings and made some attempt to put things right, it failed to adequately address the detriment to the resident. It is considered that its apology and compensation offer were not proportionate to the failings identified in this report. As such, orders and recommendations have been made for remedy. In the Ombudsman’s view, a reasonable starting point for the amount of compensation would be £50 per month for 22 months calculated from March 2022, this being 28 calendar days after the temporary fix in February 2022, until January 2024 when the reglazing took place. This would equate to £1,100. This, however, does not take into account the increased heating costs, the fact of which the landlord was made aware. Although the landlord had offered £900 in its final response for this issue, further compensation is due in recognition of its various oversights, its failure to adhere to the commitments made in its responses, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by lack of windows for a prolonged period.
- The Ombudsman therefore considers that an additional award of £700 is appropriate on the basis of delays and that the landlord did not provide any support as regards heating costs during the course of the complaints process. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies where the landlord has repeatedly failed to provide a service which has had a detrimental impact on the resident. In addition, a recommendation has been made to contact the resident about the increased heating costs.
The landlord’s handling of a request for kitchen and bathroom upgrades
- The landlord’s planned major works policy states it aims to ensure long term sustainability, safety and functionality of its properties while providing a safe and conformable living environment for residents. The scope of the policy includes internal improvements such as upgrading kitchens, bathrooms and doors, and all works are subject to survey.
- In this policy, there is an emphasis on engagement and communication with tenants, and provision of timely information about major repairs and improvement projects as well as minimising, as far as reasonably possible, disruptions and inconvenience. Having received a request for an upgrade, the landlord should properly consider the request and follow its schedule of works and keep the resident informed from the outset of its progress along with updates on any delays, together with an expected completion date, so as to manage the resident’s expectations.
- The resident’s request for kitchen and bathroom upgrades arose out of structural issues which affected the flooring and ceiling of the toilet. Indeed, in April 2021, the resident said that the problems he was having related to the fact that necessary internal works had not been carried out because of the landlord’s concerns about movement within the property. The resident has advised that the landlord informed him on 9 November 2022 that the kitchen, bathroom and toilet improvements had been cancelled until external works were completed including the windows and the cracks in the property.
- In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 20 April 2023, it said it was too early to provide timescales for undertaking the work and that it hoped to have a scope and cost by end of April 2023. It also hoped to be in a position to instruct its contractor on agreed works in May 2023. It acted fairly by attempting to manage expectations by not trying to promise something that it could not deliver. In its stage 3 response, it said it was reasonable to defer the upgrade until structural issues were resolved, but recognised that this made the structural works all the more urgent. It also acknowledged that the bathroom and kitchen were overdue for an upgrade. In December 2023, the landlord informed the resident that once it had instructed the contractor to carry out the upgrades, they would take approximately 4 weeks to complete. The landlord therefore acted fairly by carrying out surveys in relation to the kitchen and bathroom in February and July 2023.
- The Ombudsman appreciates that certain upgrade works would not be possible until major works had been completed. However, it is a concern that despite the landlord’s expectation in April 2023 of instructing its contractor on the upgrade work in May 2023, the instruction did not in fact happen until a year later, in late May 2024. There is limited evidence about the landlord’s engagement and communication with the resident about the delays to the upgrade work and it is unclear if the resident was provided with a schedule of works. The landlord did provide an update to the resident regarding the kitchen and bathroom replacement in November 2023. It advised an order had been placed with its contractor and that design and colour schemes had been agreed and added the preferred sequence of work was that the upgrades were to be undertaken only once the structural remediations had been carried out.
- Although the instruction to the contractor to complete the kitchen and bathroom upgrades had been made in May 2024, the upgrades ultimately took place three months later in August 2024, after structural works had been completed. This was a considerable amount of time since the surveys of February and July 2023, and the landlord’s initial pledge to instruct its contractor in May 2023. While the Ombudsman recognises the landlord’s stage 3 response acknowledged that the kitchen and bathroom facilities were “overdue for an upgrade”, consideration must be given to whether the circumstances. From the evidence the Ombudsman has seen, it did not appear that the kitchen and bathroom upgrades were urgent or critical. The landlord also partly managed the resident’s expectations as to when they would take place and noted that structural works were needed prior to commencing the upgrades. does not diminish the fact the upgrades were significantly delayed, and the resident spent time and trouble pursuing the matter which should not have been necessary However, it should have done more to inform the resident about the delays. Additionally, the Ombudsman has not seen that the landlord provided the resident a copy of the schedule of works for the upgrades which would have been appropriate. The resident advised the kitchen and bathroom these upgrades were completed around August/September 2024.
- While the landlord made some attempts to update the resident throughout the complaints procedure about the kitchen and bathroom upgrades, it did not adequately update the resident about any delays nor did it appear to provide a schedule of works. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a request for kitchen and bathroom upgrades, which is because of the avoidable delays and the landlord’s poor communication and expectation management, and an order has been made.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint
- At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a three stage complaints policy:
- Stage 1 – where a written response will be issued within 10 working days.
- Stage 2 – where a written response will be issued within 20 working days.
- Stage 3 – where the complaint is seen by an independent adjudicator and a written response will be issued within 20 working days.
- The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code advises 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 he was able to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy and from 1 February 2024 no longer uses three stages. However, in 2023, stage 3 was a mandatory part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
- The landlord treated the resident’s correspondence dated 10 January 2023 as the initial formal complaint. However, it would have been appropriate to have treated the correspondence of 30 October 2022 from the resident as a formal complaint. In this, the resident stated the landlord was “negligent with disrepair and complaints have not been escalated previously”. In line with its complaint policy, the landlord should log a formal complaint in response to an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about its standard of service, actions, or lack of actions which affected an individual resident. The landlord’s failure to do this was a failing on its part and it thereby missed an opportunity to engage with a formal complaint at the earliest opportunity. This likely delayed getting matters resolved for the resident. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged in its stage 3 response that the resident “complained in late 2022” which is consistent with treating the October 2022 correspondence as a formal complaint, so it is apparent that the landlord does not have a satisfactory method of identifying when a formal complaint has been made.
- On 10 January 2023, the resident continued to complain, stating that his complaint should be at stage 3 by now. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 30 January 2023. This was slightly outside its policy time scales in terms of a formal complaint made on 10 January 2023. The resident subsequently asked to escalate his complaint on 6 February 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 April 2023, over 50 working days after the escalation request, which was significantly outside its policy timescales. These failures to act within its policy time scales were failings on the part of the landlord which would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who may have felt that his concerns were not treated seriously.
- While there were some emails from the landlord during this period, they did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations as to when he would receive its stage 2 response. Indeed, in February and March 2023, the resident chased the landlord, which necessitated time and trouble, and he then referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 27 March 2023.
- Where there is a delay, landlords should endeavour to keep residents updated and inform them of the reasons for the delay and the extended timescale, which should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. However, this did not happen at stage 1 nor stage 2, nor did the landlord apologise for any of these complaint handling delays in its final response.
- Overall, the landlord failed to engage with the initial formal complaint, and there were avoidable delays at stages 1 and 2 with inadequate communication with the resident to manage his expectations. These complaint handling failures would have likely undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord to satisfactorily resolve matters for him. As the landlord did not offer an apology nor compensation across its formal responses, an order has been made to reflect the delays and lack of communication during the complaints process.
Conclusions
- In this investigation, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of its repairs, record keeping and complaint handling, similar to those identified in case 202124577. We have not, however, made any further orders for the landlord to improve this. This is because a wider order was made as part of case 202124577 with which the landlord has now complied. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with this service following the wider order, and we will monitor its progress in doing so.
- Moreover, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into Lewisham Council. This is conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and allows the Ombudsman to investigate beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings. The findings of this report will therefore contribute to the actions needed following the completion of the special investigation.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of structural issues and repairs to windows.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a request for kitchen and bathroom upgrades.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
- Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
- Pay the resident a further £850 made up of:
- £700 for the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of reports of cracks to the property and window repairs.
- £50 for the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of a request for kitchen and bathroom upgrades.
- £100 for the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- Inspect the property and satisfy itself that it has carried out all the works to an acceptable standard as outlined in its stage 3 response. If works are still found to be required, the landlord should carry these out in an appropriate timescale. The landlord must provide a copy of the post inspection report to the resident and the Ombudsman and, if works are needed, it should provide to the resident estimated start and completion dates.
- The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 28 calendar days to confirm that it has complied with these orders.
Recommendations
- The landlord should:
- Contact the resident to discuss costs of heating and, where appropriate, make referrals to relevant external agencies for support or financial assistance, and if the resident is able to provide the landlord with evidence of an increase in heating costs, due to needing to have additional heating because of draughts from the boarded-up windows, the landlord should consider offering compensation for this.
- Ensure that a vulnerability flag on the resident’s records reflects all occupants’ health conditions.