Lewisham Council (202325844)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325844

Lewisham Council

21 October 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 request to remove a coal bunker from the front hallway.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The resident occupies a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat.
3. The resident has a coal bunker near the front door in the hallway, one hatch is located on the exterior of the property, the other inside the property. In late April 2022, the resident requested that the coal bunker be repaired, as there was a gap around the steel door to the internal hatch. The landlord raised works to weld shut the hatch door; however, when its contractors attended on 16 May 2022, they said it was unsafe to weld this shut. They also noted the door on the outside hatch had previously been welded shut and was secure.
4. Subsequently in May 2022, the resident requested the removal of the coal bunker entirely from her hallway. Between May 2022 and January 2023, the resident chased the landlord. She made a further request for its removal on 9 February 2023. She told the landlord that its contractor had informed her that the hatch could not be repaired, and she wanted the entire bunker removed due to health and safety. On 16 February 2023, the landlord’s contractor said that the removal of the coal bunker would be the responsibility of the landlord, and they would therefore need to obtain approval before it could be removed.
5. On 28 July 2023, the resident made a formal complaint. She felt boarding up the gap was not an adequate solution. She also felt that the landlord had failed to determine whether there was still coal in the bunker that may impact her health. She added that all the other flats had their coal bunkers removed, and that the landlord provided no explanation as to why it would not remove hers.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 August 2023. It said that its contractors told it they had not identified any health and safety issues with the bunker itself and therefore explained that removing it would be considered improvement work that was not covered by its repairs service. They further advised that they were unable to weld the hatch door shut but this could be boarded over. However, the resident refused to have this work carried out. The landlord rejected the proposal for the coal bunker to be removed.
7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 20 August 2023. She said the landlord had not undertaken any formal health and safety checks and its contractors could not be certain what was inside the bunker. She said that all her neighbours on the ground floor have had their coal bunkers removed and she felt singled out. She also said the offer to board up the inside hatch which was damaged was not an appropriate solution and that it had been assessed as unrepairable, hence her request for the bunker to be removed.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 September 2023. It partially upheld her complaint. It reiterated its stage 1 response that removing the coal bunker would be classed as an improvement. It said it would instruct an independent surveyor to attend and complete a health and safety assessment of the coal bunker and would update the resident on its decision.
9. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 3 on 4 September 2023.  She disagreed with the landlord’s decision not to remove the bunker. She said that the metal hatch door could not be repaired and she was concerned that there was coal inside. She also felt the landlord had contradicted itself by instructing an independent surveyor to complete an assessment even though in its stage 1 response it said there were no health and safety issues with the bunker. She felt she had been treated unfairly, discriminated against, and wanted the bunker and its contents removed and said it takes up space. The landlord issued its stage 3 response on 27 September 2023. It reiterated its previous responses, where it said the removal of the bunker was improvement work and not an essential repair and there was no fault in the landlord’s refusal to remove it. It added that neighbours who are leaseholders may have removed their bunkers at their own expense. The landlord said its contractor agreed to inspect the bunker to see if there was a health and safety issue and this might provide grounds to remove it.
10. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 October 2023. She said that, since her request, asbestos tiles next to the bunker had been removed on 2 October 2023. She said the landlord did not undertake any checks to determine whether the bunker was safe and that the internal hatch door was dangerous and had fallen on her leg. She said the bunker had a large gap at the bottom and she wanted the entire bunker removed.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

11. Within her complaint to the landlord, the resident said she felt “discriminated against” as her neighbour’s bunkers had been removed in the past. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense in terms of an alleged breach of the Equality Act, as this would be more appropriate for a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s request for it to be removed, and whether the evidence suggests that the resident was treated unfavourably.

The landlord’s handling of a request to remove a coal bunker from the front hallway

12. 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 landlord’s repair guide also provides service standards for repairs. It says that the landlord aims to complete a routine (non-emergency and non-urgent) repair within 20 working days.
13. The first report of an issue with the coal bunker was made in April 2022. The resident requested that the bunker be repaired as there was a gap at the bottom of the internal steel door. The landlord initially acted fairly by attending within 20 working days of the initial report and advised it was unable to weld the inside door shut due to inadequate space for hot welding works and potential fire damage to the carpet in the hallway.
14. Later in May 2022, she requested the bunker be removed entirely. The landlord’s records suggest this request was passed onto its commercial team for approval. The resident chased a number of times between May 2022 and January 2023. From the landlord’s internal records, there appears to have been some confusion with what category the request fell into, with multiple re-categorizations. The landlord did not provide adequate updates to the resident between these periods which led to the resident chasing it on multiple occasions.. Indeed, it was not until almost a year later that the resident received a response to her request. This was a considerable amount of time and would have caused distress to the resident.
15. Indeed, the landlord’s records show that a quotation for the removal of the bunker was received from its contractor on 22 June 2022 for approval. However, in April 2023 this was rejected by the landlord. It was entitled to refuse a request it considered an improvement; however, it is concerning that a decision was not made for almost a year. This was a failing on the part of the landlord and its lack of communication likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who may have felt her concerns were not being taken seriously.
16. The landlord contacted the resident in June 2023 offering to board up the internal hatch. This was an appropriate approach and demonstrated that it had considered the resident’s comments from February 2023 that the door to the internal hatch kept falling down hitting her legs. However, it is noted the resident refused the boarding up and advised that her main concerns were those of health and safety.
17. Had the landlord satisfied itself that the coal bunker (and/or its contents) did not pose any health and safety issues, it was entitled to decline to remove it on the basis that it would be an improvement. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the removal of the coal bunker would be classed as an improvement work, although it added that its repair contractor submitted a proposal for the bunker to be removed. This however was rejected as there were health and safety concerns recorded by the contractor. Yet, in the resident’s escalation request she said that no health and safety assessment of the bunker had been carried out. Indeed, the landlord suggests that part of its decision was based on the fact there were no health and safety issues but had not inspected the bunker. Up to this point, the landlord had no reason to think there were health ands safety issues, and the resident had not offered any evidence to suggest there were. This would have caused confusion as the landlord said the contractor found no health and safety issues but had not carried out a suitable health and safety assessment of the bunker.
18. It is particularly concerning that, having acted reasonably at stage 2 by promising to arrange for such a survey, the landlord then failed to carry out that promise prior to its stage 3 response in which it declined the request to remove the bunker. In its stage 3 response, it simply offered for its contractor to inspect the bunker to see if there was a health and safety issue which might provide grounds for removing it.
19. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence in the landlord’s repairs logs that it attempted to carry out an inspection after the resident raised her concerns about health and safety between February and September 2023. Indeed, she advised this Service that she did not know whether the bunker was safe or not. The landlord failed to adequately establish whether or not the bunker posed health and safety concerns. The Ombudsman would expect that when a resident raises a request the landlord should consider it, and provide a timely clear response, setting out its position. Although it set out its position, its response to her request was delayed and it failed to adequately address her repeated health and safety concerns. This would have led to frustration for the resident who may have felt the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
20. The resident advised that some other properties on the ground floor of the building have had their bunkers removed. She added that some of these belonged to secure council tenants while others were owned by leaseholders. While this may be the case, the Ombudsman does not know the circumstances in which a given bunker may have been removed; for example, the landlord may have removed a bunker and recharged the resident. An internal landlord email stated it also found no evidence a neighbouring council tenant had their bunker removed, which was contrary to the resident’s testimony.
21. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request was poor. While the landlord considered the request to remove the coal bunker to be an improvement, it did not adequately communicate its decision to the resident in a reasonable time. It simply refused the request and did not carry out an assessment to establish if the coal bunker and/or its contents posed a health and safety risk. This was despite its commitment to do so in its stage 2 response. Indeed, no inspections appear to have taken place since then. While the landlord was entitled to refuse the request based on the fact it considered it to be an alteration it was not willing to fund, it should have followed through with the health and safety inspection to confirm for the resident she was safe.
22. In light of the failing identified in this report, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration. In line with this service’s remedies guidance, compensation awards from £100 may be considered where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident. Orders have been made below for remedy.
23. The Ombudsman notes that, on 18 September 2023, the resident advised the landlord that she had not been informed by the contractor that there was asbestos under the carpet by the front door. She added this was next to the coal bunker. The resident has advised that asbestos tiles in the property were subsequently removed on 2 October 2023, after the landlord’s final response. The resident may well be concerned that asbestos remains in the hallway close to or forming part of the bunker, and a recommendation has been made in this respect.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request to remove a coal bunker from the front hallway.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

25. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of a request to remove a coal bunker from the front hallway.
    2. Arrange for an independent surveyor with appropriate expertise to carry out a health and safety assessment of the coal bunker as promised in its stage 2 response. The landlord must provide a copy of the assessment/report to both the resident and the Ombudsman. If there are any health and safety issues with the bunker (and/or its contents), the landlord must consider removing it.
26. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 28 calendar days to confirm that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendation

27. The landlord should confirm for the resident that there is no asbestos in the property.