Lewisham Council (202304881)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304881

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Boiler repair issues.
    2. Lift repair issues.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint will also be considered.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a 1st floor flat. The resident has a number of significant health issues and vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show it received a report that the lift was not working on 6 April 2023, which it repaired the same day.
  3. Following correspondence with the resident, the Service told the landlord on 10 May 2023 to respond to the resident’s complaint about boiler repair issues, loss of heating, and the lift not working. There is no evidence to confirm that the resident had raised a complaint to the landlord prior to this.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 May 2023. It said that a contractor attended on 3 May 2023, and it subsequently referred the repair to the manufacturers as the boiler was under warranty. The manufacturer repaired the boiler on 9 May 2023. It said it would contact the resident about the lift within 5 working days.
  5. The resident contacted the Service on 14 September 2023. She said the lift repair issues were ongoing and she wanted the landlord to repair it as soon as possible. She was dissatisfied the landlord had incorrectly assured her the lift would not break down again. She wanted to be moved to a ground floor property as the ongoing lift issues impacted her health conditions. The Service then referred the complaint to the landlord to respond at stage 2 of its complaint process.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 10 November 2023, it said it had repaired the lift, but recognised it was not within a reasonable timeframe. It had completed a review of the lift on 1 November 2023 to assess the reasons for it breaking down. It experienced delays in receiving the report, which it would address with the contractor. It was putting in place procedures to limit further outages. It acknowledged it should not have told the resident that the lift would not break down again, as lifts can be susceptible to breakdowns due to the mechanical nature. It could not guarantee there would be no further faults. It said the resident should apply for rehousing if she wanted to move to a ground floor property on medical grounds. It completed repairs to the heating in May and August, and it asked the resident to report any further issues.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not put in place a lasting repair to the lift, and it had broken down on multiple further occasions following the landlord’s final response. She wanted to move to a ground floor property as she experienced difficulties using the stairs when the lift was not working.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised several complaints to the Service, including about damp and mould in her previous property (202204461), removal of her white goods and concerns about management of her rent account (202312339), and her request to move the gas meter. This investigation is focused on the resident’s complaint about the lift and boiler repair issues. The other complaint matters will be investigated under their respective complaint reference numbers. It is important to note that each issue needs to complete the landlord’s complaint process before it will be investigated.
  2. The resident reported recent issues with her boiler to the Service. Due to the time elapsed since the initial complaint, there is no evidence to confirm whether the issues are related. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. As such, the investigation will focus on the boiler repair issues reported to the landlord at the time of the complaint, up until the landlord issued its final complaint response on 10 November 2023. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. This is in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states we may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  3. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’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 so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of boiler repair issues

  1. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to any installations for the supply of gas, heating, and water. The landlord’s repair guide states that a loss of space or water heating in summer (May–October) is considered a standard repair, which it will complete within 20 working days.
  2. Despite requests from the Service, the landlord has not provided repair records relating to the boiler. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, the lack of records has impacted the Service’s ability to determine a clear timeline of events. The assessment of the landlord’s actions has relied on the information provided in its complaint responses.
  3. It is unclear when the resident initially reported the boiler repair issues. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that a contractor attended on 3 May 2023, and it subsequently referred the repair to its manufacturers. As the property was in the warranty period, this was a reasonable action to take, as the repairs fell within the manufacturer’s remit. Although the landlord was not directly responsible for completing the repairs, it would still be expected to ensure that repairs are appropriately managed and completed within a reasonable timeframe.
  4. The landlord said the manufacturer repaired the boiler on 9 May 2023. Despite the limited repair records, from the available evidence it appears the repairs were completed within the landlord’s 20-working day timeframe.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it completed further boiler repairs in August 2023. The Service has not received any evidence relating to these repairs. It does not appear the repairs in August 2023 were a continuation of the boiler issues in May 2023 or that they were outstanding for a prolonged period. Nonetheless, the lack of records has prevented the Service from determining whether the landlord acted in line with its repair obligations. We are also unable to properly assess whether there was any detriment to the resident. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, £50 compensation is warranted as from the context of the evidence any failing was likely for a short duration but may have cause inconvenience to the resident.
  6. It is evident that there are similar record-keeping failings 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 which the landlord has now complied with. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with the Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this. 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 outcome and action needed following the completion of the investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of lift repair issues

  1. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to communal areas, including lifts. The landlord’s lift and staircase policy states that it “has a duty of care to ensure that its lifting equipment is kept and maintained to a safe standard”. The landlord’s website states that it considers lift breakdowns an emergency repair, which should be completed within 24 hours. It will aim to attend within 1 hour if there is someone stuck in the lift and 2-3 hours if the lift is empty.
  2. It is understood that as the property is a new build, the landlord was in contract with the lift manufacturer and had to refer any repairs to them to maintain the warranty. While this somewhat limits the landlord’s options to manage the repair, it should ensure it liaises with the manufacturer to ensure they complete the necessary repairs to put in place a full and lasting resolution.
  3. The repair records show that the resident initially reported the lift was not working on 6 April 2024 and the landlord repaired it the same day. The landlord therefore acted appropriately as it repaired the lift in line with its repair response timeframe. There were subsequently 5 further instances between 26 April 2023 and 19 May 2023 that the lift was out of order. On each occasion the landlord repaired the lift within 1 working day, in line with its policy. However, it is recognised that numerous breakdowns within such a short period of time would have caused inconvenience to the resident. The consecutive breakdowns likely indicated that there was an underlying issue, which the landlord should have further investigated.
  4. The landlord’s repair records only noted when the repairs were raised and completed, and lacked information regarding what work was completed and whether any follow-on works were required. The Service’s knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report noted that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. In this case, there may have been a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify patterns in the repair issues and identify that follow-on works or a more in-depth inspection was required.
  5. The landlord said in its stage 1 response on 24 May 2023 that it would contact the resident within 5 working days regarding the lift, but there is no evidence that it did. This was unreasonable as it failed to show the resident that it was taking the matter seriously to put in place a full and lasting resolution or take the opportunity to manage her expectations regarding the actions it would take. This is of particular concern as it is evident the landlord’s handling of the repairs has caused a long-term impact to the resident’s relationship with the landlord, as she told the Service she no longer reports new issues.
  6. The lift broke down a further 10 times between 26 May 2023 and 6 November 2023. The landlord promptly attended and reinstated the lift on most occasions. However, the repair records show that the lift was out of order between 5 June 2023 and 17 July 2023, which was 37 days. This was an unreasonable timeframe. The records do not confirm what caused the delay in completing the repair. The lift was out of order again from 28 July 2023 until 2 August 2023.
  7. The repeated lift breakdowns had a greater impact on the resident as she has several health issues. The resident advised the landlord in the sign-up to the property that she has issues with mobility, stamina, breathing, and fatigue, and her doctor provided supporting evidence on 19 May 2023. The resident also reported that she had fallen down the stairs due to the lift not working. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered the resident’s health concerns, assessed whether she required additional support, or that it carried out a risk assessment. This was unreasonable as the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had considered whether any reasonable adjustments would be appropriate to ensure the resident could safely use the property.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had incorrectly assured her the lift would not break down again. The Service has not been provided with a copy of this correspondence, so we are unable to confirm the details of the conversation. Nonetheless, it was reasonable that the landlord took accountability for the misinformation and provided a clear explanation regarding why it could not guarantee there would be no further breakdowns. It is important to note, while lifts can be susceptible to breakdowns due to their mechanical nature, this does not omit the landlord’s responsibility to complete necessary repairs to prevent repeated repair issues.
  9. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it completed a review of the lift on 1 November 2023 to assess the reasons for the repeated breakdowns. In the Ombudsman’s view, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this sooner, rather than after 7 months of repeated faults. The Service has not been provided with a copy of this report, so we are unable to assess whether the landlord has acted appropriately to put in place a full and lasting resolution.
  10. Given that the landlord delayed issuing its final response so that it could receive the surveyor’s report, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided a clearer response on the actions it intended to take. It missed an opportunity to share the outcome of the lift review with the resident, to manage her expectations regarding the required work and expected timeframe to put in place a full resolution. If the landlord had provided such information, this may have provided reassurance to the resident that it was taking her concerns reasonably and reduced her stress around the matter.
  11. The landlord’s repair records show that there were 6 further lift breakdowns between 6 November 2023 and 12 June 2024. The resident also reported to the Service on several further occasions that the lift issues were ongoing. She told the Service that the lift issues have since been resolved after over 18 months. As such, it is evident that the landlord failed to put in place a full and lasting resolution within a reasonable timeframe.
  12. In its final response the landlord acknowledged that the lift issue was not rectified in an acceptable timeframe. However, it did not offer any compensation or take any steps to redress the issue. Given the impact on the resident, this was unreasonable. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failure has adversely impacted the resident and it failed to address the detriment to the resident. In this case, the landlord failed to promptly investigate the underlying cause of the lift breakdowns, which caused a repeated impact on the resident as she experienced difficulties using the stairs when the lift was not working. The landlord therefore must pay the resident £600 compensation.
  13. The resident wants to move to a ground floor property, so she is not impacted by further lift breakdowns. It was reasonable that the landlord provided guidance on how the resident could move to a ground floor property. It was also reasonable that it told her assessments were taking approximately 26 weeks, to manage her expectations regarding the timeframe. The landlord should ensure that it addresses any additional questions regarding the process the resident may have.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy, at the time of the resident’s complaint, stated that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, and stage 3 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. Following correspondence from the Service, the Service asked the landlord to raise a complaint on 10 May 2023 and it responded on 24 May 2023, which was within its response timeframe. The response focused on the boiler repair issues and the landlord said it would contact the resident within 5 working days to discuss the lift. This was unreasonable as in line with the Service’s complaint handling code the landlord must address all points raised in the complaint.
  3. The landlord should have utilised the provision in its complaints policy that allows it to extend the timeframe by 10 working days, answer the points it can within the original timeframe, and provide a new date for sending the response letter for the remaining points. Although it was reasonable that the landlord provided a timeframe for when it would contact the resident regarding the lift, it did not issue a formal response. This meant the landlord only addressed the lift issue at stage 2 and the resident did not have the opportunity to respond and raise any further issues that may have arisen from the response.
  4. The Service asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint on 15 September 2023. We then sent a final request for action letter on 17 October 2023 and the landlord advised that there was a delay in its response as it was waiting for a report from its contractor. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 10 November 2023, which meant it took 40 working days to issue the final response. The landlord’s complaint response states that the extension should not exceed a further 10 working days, so the timeframe was unreasonable.
  5. The landlord has not recognised its failings or taken steps to redress the issues. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, £50 compensation is appropriate as the failings were minimal and did not significantly impact the overall outcome for the resident. Nonetheless, it caused inconvenience to the resident and delayed getting matters resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of boiler repair issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of lift repair issues.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £50 for its poor records in relation to the boiler repairs.
    2. £600 for its failings in handling the lift repairs.
    3. £50 for its complaint-handling failures.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its complaint handling practices to ensure that it responds to all elements of the complaint within the relevant timeframes.