Lewisham Council (202319659)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319659

Lewisham Council

28 November 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:
1. the resident’s mutual exchange.
2. a repair to an electrical socket in the kitchen.
3. reports of antisocial behaviour.
The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a bedsit on the third floor. There are no known vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord.
On 7 July 2023 the resident signed a mutual exchange deed of assignment to move into the property on 10 July 2023. He made a complaint to the landlord on 19 July 2023 stating he had been pressured into the mutual exchange. The resident said that he had not seen the property before he signed the deed. He stated the previous tenant had paid his arrears to enable the mutual exchange. The resident said he was unhappy with the property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 August 2023. It said the resident and his previous landlord had not raised any concerns about the mutual exchange. The landlord stated the resident would not have any direct contact with it until the point of sign up when it became his landlord. It said the resident’s previous landlord had been responsible for communicating with him about the process and any support needed. The landlord said any payments by the previous tenant was a private matter which it could not assist with. It directed the resident to contact the police if he felt he had been coerced into the agreement. The landlord said an inspection and safety checks had occurred and the property met the required standards. It stated the deed of assignment is a legally binding document which cannot be withdrawn. The landlord said it had not seen any loose sockets and that as part of the sign-up the resident had been given a repairs guide on how to report any repairs. It reminded the resident how he could report these. The landlord had signposted the resident to support agencies and suggested he contacted his GP about how he felt.
On 20 November 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He reiterated his concerns about the mutual exchange. The resident stated concerns about the previous tenant’s behaviour towards him and said he was experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB). He believed somebody had entered his flat to fix a water pipe without his consent and on another occasion, said somebody had ripped his mattress open with a knife. The resident requested the landlord check the CCTV. He said he was cold as the windows in the property did not close properly.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 December 2022. It stated its position remained the same about the mutual exchange. The landlord reiterated that it could not help with the concerns the resident had made about the previous tenant. It suggested the resident contact the police and he may wish to seek legal advice. The landlord detailed the action it had taken in response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and allegations of his property being broken into. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it said there was no evidence somebody had accessed the property. The police had closed the case, and the resident had not provided the information it had requested. The landlord said an urgent lock change had been requested and the resident would be contacted about this soon. It said the resident had not reported the electrical socket repair and he had been advised it was his responsibility to report repairs. The landlord said on this occasion the housing officer had done this on his behalf and an electrician attended on 29 November 2023 with a follow-up appointment booked for 5 January 2024.
On 24 January 2024 the resident contacted this Service because he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He felt the landlord was blaming him for the mutual exchange and he was unhappy with the condition of the property. The resident wanted the Ombudsman to investigate as he felt the situation was modern slavery.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange

The landlord’s mutual exchange policy reflects the statutory position applicable to tenants whose tenure gives a right to exchange, in that a landlord may not withhold its consent to an exchange save on specified grounds and unless it has served the required notice giving particulars of those grounds within 42 days of the tenant’s request.
The evidence showed the landlord responded to the mutual exchange request in line with its policy. The previous tenant requested the mutual exchange on 16 June 2023 and within 2 working days the landlord set up the mutual exchange case.
On 19 June 2023 the landlord requested and provided the required information and references with the other landlord involved in the mutual exchange. The landlord also made an internal request for a property inspection, gas and electrical checks. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy.
The evidence showed a gas inspection had already been carried out on the property on 14 June 2023 and had passed with no defects identified or remedial action listed. On 27 June 2023 the property was inspected by the landlord’s surveyor which was in line with the landlord’s policy which states an inspection “should ideally” be completed within 10 days of the request for an inspection. The surveyor listed the condition of the property as “good” in all areas. The only comment the surveyor made was identifying there was a frame in the bedsit room that the previous tenant had used to hang a curtain on to create a divide in the room. The surveyor said if the incoming tenant did not want the frame it would need to be removed. The previous tenant said the resident wanted it. The surveyor took 28 photos of the property to accompany the inspection report. The electrical check took place on 29 June 2023.
The landlord’s mutual exchange case was updated on 3 July 2024 stating the electrical, gas and property inspections had been completed and there were “no issues”. On the same date the reference from the resident’s previous landlord was received and the mutual exchange was sent for internal approval which was agreed.
The mutual exchange deed of assignment was signed on 7 July 2023 to take effect from 10 July 2023. The evidence showed the sign-up took place at the property. The resident signed a repairs disclaimer which confirmed he had been provided with a copy of the inspection report of the property and any items considered to be the results of works carried out by the existing tenant would not be the responsibility of the landlord to maintain, repair or replace. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy which states, “A copy of the report will be made available at the sign-up as the incoming tenant is required to sign a disclaimer which confirms they have been given a copy of the inspection report”.
In its complaint responses the landlord explained the mutual exchange process and that the deed of assignment is a legally binding document which cannot be withdrawn. It said the resident had the opportunity to raise any concerns before signing the paperwork and that he accepted the tenancy and property as it was when he viewed it by signing the deed and repairs disclaimer. This was appropriate and reasonable.
The landlord appropriately signposted the resident in both its complaint responses. It directed the resident to his previous landlord if he was unhappy with the support he received during the mutual exchange process, to the police if he felt coerced into matters with the previous tenant, and to seek legal advice if necessary. The landlord also provided details of alternative housing options for the resident to consider in its stage 1 response. In both responses the landlord encouraged the resident to seek support for his wellbeing. The landlord recommended the resident speak to his general practitioner and stated the housing officer had previously signposted him to other support agencies.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear the resident is unhappy with the property and the distress this may be causing, it was the resident’s decision to proceed with the mutual exchange. The landlord followed its procedure, and the appropriate inspection and checks were carried out.

The landlord’s handling of a repair to an electrical socket in the kitchen

The landlord’s tenancy agreement states, “We will keep in good repair the structure; the exterior of the building; all installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating, sanitation”.
The resident did not mention a problem with an electrical socket in his initial complaint. However, the landlord referenced the housing officer did not see any loose electrical sockets during the sign up in its stage 1 complaint. It is reasonable to conclude that during its stage 1 investigation the landlord spoke to the resident and was told about this matter. This was appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which states “Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related and the stage 1 response has not been issued”. In its stage 1 response the landlord directed the resident to the repairs guide he was given as part of his tenancy pack at the sign-up. The landlord also provided details on how to report repairs in its stage 1 response. This was appropriate and reasonable.
The resident referenced the loose electrical socket again in an email he sent the landlord on 15 October 2023. The landlord replied on 24 October 2023 reminding the resident of how its stage 1 response had provided him with the ways to report repairs. It stated records showed the repair had not been logged and recommended he report the repairs immediately, again providing the contact details for this. This was appropriate and reasonable as it is the resident’s responsibility to report repairs as per the landlord’s repairs policy.
Although the resident’s escalation email did not mention the electrical socket, this was referenced again in the landlord’s stage 2 response. It said the resident had referenced the socket to an ASB officer who asked if he had reported this. The resident said he had not, as he thought it was the housing officer’s responsibility. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that the resident had been advised it was his responsibility to report repairs. It also said on this occasion the housing officer had reported the repair for him. This was a resolution-focused approach.
The landlord’s stage 2 response and repair records show a work order for the electrical socket was raised on 29 November 2023. This work order was given an “emergency” priority which the landlord’s policy states has a response time of “within 24 hours”. The landlord attended in line with its policy timeframe which was appropriate. A new work order was raised for the follow-up work titled “refix high level sockets in the kitchen” on 29 November 2023. An appointment for this work was arranged for 5 January 2024. However, as of 9 October 2024, when the landlord submitted evidence to this Service, the work order has a status of “job sent to contractor” and no completion date listed. The resident told this Service that the work was still outstanding.
The Ombudsman has been unable to establish why this work order has not been completed 9 months after the appointment date and if it had, why the repairs records were not accurate. This Service requested further evidence from the landlord on this matter but to date this has not been provided.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a repair to an electrical socket. This is because 9 months after the scheduled repair appointment, records show this repair has not been completed. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award the resident £100 to reflect the level of detriment. This amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is the maximum compensation for service failure. If not already done so, the landlord is ordered to carry out the repair on the resident’s kitchen socket as specified in work order 5254755.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

The landlord’s ASB policy states it uses the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB which is “conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person; conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person‘s occupation of residential premises; or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person”.
The policy also stated that sometimes another person’s behaviour may be annoying or disturbing, but not reach the threshold of ASB. The landlord listed this as nuisance which included some types of noise and neighbour disputes.
On 26 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about some noise he was experiencing. He stated the noise was similar to noise he experienced in his previous property. The resident said the noise happened whenever he moved into his bathroom or kitchen and had started from the first day he moved into the property. He felt somebody was deliberately making the noise to annoy him.
The landlord replied to the resident the following day, 27 July 2023, which was in line with its policy which states it will respond to reports of noise nuisance within 3 working days. It advised the resident that it had not received any similar reports from others in the block. The landlord advised the resident to download the noise app and record the incidents. It said it would review the recordings. The landlord was concerned that the resident had stated this noise was occurring at his previous property and asked for more information regarding this. The landlord’s response was appropriate and reasonable.
The resident replied on the same day stating he was unable to record anything at his previous address but said he had made reports to his landlord and other services including the police. He believed the previous tenant of the property was aware of his neighbour problems and said there was no reason for his new neighbours to continue the problems. It was unclear from the evidence what happened after this email exchange, but the evidence showed the resident did not send any noise app recordings to the landlord and needed to be reminded about downloading the noise app at a later date.
The resident did not raise ASB as part of this complaint, but the landlord addressed the arrangements the resident had made with the previous tenant in its stage 1 response dated 2 August 2023. It said this was a private matter between the resident and previous tenant which it could not get involved in. The landlord advised the resident to contact the police if he felt he had been coerced into the mutual exchange, which it said the housing officer had already advised him to do.
The resident reported further concerns in an email to the landlord on 3 September 2023. He said he thought the noise was from the neighbour next to him who was the cousin of the previous tenant. The resident thought his neighbour was deliberately hitting things when he went to the toilet or into the kitchen. He thought the neighbour was harassing him. It is unclear when the resident was contacted in response to these concerns, but the evidence showed the landlord opened an ASB case and met with the resident on 10 October 2023.
At the meeting on 10 October 2023 the landlord advised the resident again to download the noise app and report the noise issues. The landlord advised the resident that it needed evidence including dates, times and details to be able to take any action. The landlord advised the resident to contact the police regarding any threats and drug use, which was appropriate. It also suggested to the resident that he seek medical help if he was suffering mentally due to his allegations.
The resident submitted some noise recordings which the landlord responded to on 15 October 2023. The landlord stated the recordings were “normal living noise” and it could not take the matter any further. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which states, “We will not investigate behaviour or incidents under this policy that fall outside of these definitions. This includes, for example, day-to-day living noises – children playing or crying; the sound of footsteps; toilets flushing or vacuuming”. The landlord reiterated to the resident that if he felt he was being threatened he needed to contact the police. It asked for further information about the allegations the resident was making against the previous tenant and a group of boys. The landlord said if the resident was not expecting visitors, he could mute his door entry buzzer, so he was not disturbed. It also suggested the resident contact his general practitioner for support. This was an appropriate and reasonable response from the landlord.
The resident replied stating he was disappointed with the response he had received to his noise recordings. He stated the noise had happened to him in a previous property and now his current property. The resident alleged his previous and current housing officer were picking sides and supporting gangs.
Although the landlord was not able to take any action on the resident’s noise reports, on 16 October 2023 the landlord sent letters to all the residents in the block about nuisance and how to report it. This was appropriate and reasonable.
On 23 October 2023 the resident reported gun fire. The landlord telephoned the resident back the same day which was in line with its policy which states it will respond to reports of gun or knife crime within 24 hours. During this telephone call with the resident, it was identified that it was “a banging noise that sounded like gunfire” that the resident was reporting. The resident also reported “unknown persons loitering in the block”. The landlord advised the resident this was a known issue which she was working with the safer neighbourhood team to address. In its stage 2 response the landlord told the resident that it had requested increased patrols, and the police had advised this had resulted in arrests. This was in line with the landlord’s policy which states, “We work with other agencies and partners, such as the police and social services, to share information and tackle anti-social behaviour in a coordinated and effective way. Some partners may have tools or powers that we do not”.
The landlord contacted the police about the resident’s concerns and welfare on 24 October 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the partnership work referenced in the landlord’s policy. The police provided the landlord with an update and the landlord logged this appropriately on the ASB case file, which was appropriate. On the same date the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in writing and reiterated its previous advice. It also stated the police had advised its enquiries were ongoing. The landlord told the resident he should contact his general practitioner if his mood was being affected. This was appropriate.
On 14 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord reporting somebody had accessed his property. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour team appropriately signposted the resident to the police. On the same day, the housing officer followed up with a phone call to the resident. The landlord requested details of when the resident thought his property had been entered and asked for a police reference number, but the resident did not provide this information. The housing officer also contacted the police about the alleged incident. This was appropriate and reasonable, and working in partnership with other agencies as stated in the landlord’s policy.
On 28 November the resident made another report of somebody accessing his property. The landlord contacted him on the same date about this report which was in line with its policy which states the landlord will respond to reports of “criminal behaviour in or around the property” within 3 working days. When the resident was unable to provide the date and time of when this incident happened and stated it was last week, the landlord advised it could not request CCTV footage based on such a large timeframe. This was reasonable. The landlord followed up with the police and other agencies about the resident’s report and welfare, which was appropriate.
The evidence showed that between 28 November 2023 and 5 December 2023 the landlord followed up on the resident’s report and CCTV was requested for 20 November 2023 between 2pm and 6pm. The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 22 December 2022, said it did not have any evidence to suggest anyone was accessing the property. It said the police did not have any evidence and had closed their case. Despite this, the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it had ordered an urgent lock change for the property to help give the resident peace of mind going forward. This was a resolution-focused approach from the landlord to support the resident.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy, took appropriate action where it could including a lock change, provided appropriate and reasonable signposting and worked in partnership with other agencies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate”.
In the resident’s escalation email he raised concerns about his windows not closing properly. The landlord identified this matter as a complaint point because at the start of its stage 2 response it had included “windows do not close properly” as one of the concerns the resident had raised. However, the landlord did not address this matter at any point during its stage 2 response. This was not appropriate and not in line with the Code.
The landlord not addressing the resident’s concerns about his windows delayed the resident getting a resolution to this matter and meant the resident was unable to refer this matter to the Ombudsman as it had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. As this matter had not been raised during the stage 1 investigation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have advised the resident it was logging a new complaint for this matter, in line with the Code. However, the landlord did not reference this in its stage 2 response.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award the resident £100 for its complaints handling. This amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is the maximum compensation for service failure. The landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection of the resident’s windows and to carry out any recommended work identified in this inspection.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of a repair to an electrical socket in the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the residents reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £200. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to his rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to this Service. The compensation is comprised of:
1. £100 in respect of the landlord’s handling of a repair to an electrical socket in the kitchen.
2. £100 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
If not already done so, the landlord is ordered to carry out the repair on the resident’s kitchen socket as specified in work order 5254755. This work must be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this report and evidenced by submitting the completed work order detailing the work carried out.
The landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection of the resident’s windows and to carry out any recommended work identified in this inspection. The inspection and any remedial work must be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this report. This must be evidenced by sending this Service a copy of the inspection report and the completed work order detailing the work carried out.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reminds all staff dealing with complaints that they must address all points raised in residents’ complaints, in line with the Code.