Lewisham Council (202326309)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326309

Lewisham Council

29 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of:
    1. Leaks, damp, and mould.
    2. Issues with the toilet flush.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a flat. The flat is over 3 floors.
  2. The repair records show that the landlord raised a work order on 30 January 2023 for an uncontainable leak. It subsequently raised several further work orders to address the issue between 13 February 2023 and 3 July 2023.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 6 July 2023. She said there had been a leak on the left side of the hallway wall since September 2022. The landlord failed to attend an appointment on 1 November 2022 and did not respond when the resident chased it. The leak had now spread to the right side of the wall. She said the landlord had missed a further appointment on 3 July 2023. She said there was an increased smell of damp and mould in the living room, and she was concerned about the impact on her health. She wanted the landlord to resolve the leak, damp, and mould, and repair the affected areas.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 July 2023. It apologised for the missed appointments and offered £40 compensation. It apologised that the leak was ongoing. It said leak detection plumbers had attended the block on 3 July 2023, 10 July 2023, and 12 July 2023 to carry out various exercises to trace the leak. It had experienced ongoing issues accessing a neighbouring property. It identified that an above leaseholder property had redesigned the bathroom and shower area and had advised they had a flood a month prior. It had arranged a further appointment to the neighbour’s property on 27 July 2023. It would resolve the damp and mould once the leak was repaired.
  5. On 30 August 2023 the resident escalated the complaint. She said the leak was ongoing and she had not received any updates. She also reported that the toilet was not flushing and there was an inadequate amount of hot water. She requested compensation for the length of time the leak had been ongoing.
  6. In its stage 2 response on 27 September 2023, the landlord said it had identified the source of the leak was a leasehold property and it had advised them to remedy the leak on 27 July 2023. The leaseholder confirmed they removed the tiles allowing entry to the pipe access panels. The landlord had booked an inspection on 29 September 2023 to determine the location of the leak. It would work with the leaseholder to complete the necessary repairs and take legal action if necessary. It would update the resident after the inspection. It could not raise remedial works to the damp and mould until the leak was resolved. It said it was not responsible for redecoration or replacement of damaged items and signposted the resident to her home contents insurance or said she could make a claim through its insurer. It had completed repairs to the toilet on 7 September 2023. It offered £60 compensation for the poor standard of service.
  7. In the resident’s complaint to the Service, she said she remained dissatisfied with the length of time the leak, damp and mould was ongoing. She confirmed that the issues had since been resolved, but the landlord had not checked the impact on her carpet and flooring. She said the landlord had completed repairs to the toilet, but the flush was still not sufficiently powerful.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns 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 health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide 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.
  2. The resident has raised a separate complaint with the landlord about loss of hot water in the property. This is being handled by the Ombudsman separately under complaint reference 202346715. This investigation will therefore focus on the complaint set out above.
  3. In her complaint to the Service, the resident has raised concerns about the water pressure in the property. There is no evidence that she raised such concerns in her complaint or escalation request. 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. 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.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak, damp, and mould

  1. The landlord’s damp mould and leaks policy states that it will treat reports seriously and clearly communicate with residents about the actions it will take. As such, when the resident initially reported the leak, damp, and mould, it should have promptly assessed the issue, determined the appropriate actions to resolve the matter, and kept the resident regularly updated. The landlord’s website states that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days.
  2. In the resident’s complaint on 6 July 2023, she said a leak in the hallway had been ongoing since September 2022 and the landlord made an appointment on 1 November 2022 but failed to attend. There are no repair records to confirm this, but the landlord did not dispute the events in its stage 1 response. The landlord therefore failed to demonstrate that it promptly took appropriate steps to trace and resolve the leak when initially reported by the resident, which prolonged the impact to her.
  3. 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”. The lack of records likely impacted the landlord’s ability to monitor the repair and ensure it attended in a timely manner.
  4. The landlord subsequently raised a work order on 30 January 2023 for an uncontainable leak, which it marked as completed on 13 February 2023. The landlord’s website states that it considers uncontainable leaks as emergency repairs. It therefore exceeded its response timeframe by 13 days, which was unreasonable. There is also no evidence that the landlord ensured the property was safe in the interim. The repair records do not include any details on what works it completed during the appointment, but it raised follow-on work to remove the water tank.
  5. The landlord raised further work orders to trace and remedy a leak on 9 June 2023 and 3 July 2023. In its complaint response, the landlord said its contractor attended on 3 July 2023, 10 July 2023, and 12 July 2023 to determine the source of the leak. The corresponding repair records are largely missing so it is unclear what steps the landlord took. 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.
  6. Despite the lack of detailed records, it is evident that the landlord had identified the source of the leak to a neighbouring property, who was a leaseholder of the landlord. It found that the leaseholder had redesigned the bathroom and told them to further investigate the leak. The landlord arranged a further inspection of the neighbour’s property on 27 July 2023. Following the inspection, it said it could not excavate the panels in the leaseholder’s bathroom to confirm the leak, so the leaseholder was required to complete further investigation.
  7. As the leak originated from a leasehold property, the landlord does not have the same repair obligations as the leaseholder would be responsible for the majority of repairs to the property, details of which would be set out in the lease. Nonetheless, the landlord is responsible for liaising directly with the leaseholder to ensure that they take appropriate steps to investigate and remedy the leak that was impacting the resident’s property. If the leaseholder does not adhere to their repair obligations, the landlord can take further action.
  8. In the resident’s complaint escalation on 30 August 2023, she said that she had not received any updates since 7 July 2023 and the leak was ongoing. While the landlord was not necessarily responsible for completing further investigations into the cause of the leak, as it had identified it was the leaseholder’s responsibility, it still had an obligation to ensure it was regularly liaising with the leaseholder and keeping the resident updated on the progress. It was therefore unreasonable that it had not provided any updates.
  9. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the leaseholder had removed the tiles allowing entry to the pipe access panels. The landlord had booked an inspection on 29 September 2023 to determine the location of the leak. It reiterated that it would work with the leaseholder to complete the repairs and take legal action if necessary. While the actions were appropriate, the landlord should have provided such updates outside of the complaint process to keep the resident updated at the earliest opportunity.
  10. Following the completion of the complaint process, the leaseholder provided the landlord with evidence on 9 October 2023 to confirm a plumber had inspected and found no leaks, and they had sealed the plug basin waste and bath tap to stop a possible leak. However, the resident chased the leak on 14 November 2023 so the landlord should have considered alternative causes and assessed whether there were any repairs that fell within its remit of responsibility in order to resolve the leak in full. The landlord subsequently internally noted that on 12 December 2023 it had identified and remedied a leak behind a duct that had been tiled over in a leaseholder’s flat.
  11. It therefore took 14 months to resolve the leak, following the resident’s initial report in September 2022. It is recognised that leaks can take longer than the landlord’s repair response timeframes to resolve as they can be complex issues. The landlord also experienced delays in accessing and pursuing the leaseholder, which was somewhat outside of its control. Nonetheless, the delay was excessive and had a clear detrimental impact on the resident.
  12. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it could not raise remedial works for damp and mould as the leak was ongoing. It is recognised that the landlord would not be able to provide a full and lasting resolution to the damp and mould while the leak was ongoing, as the leak would provide conditions for the damp and mould to spread. However, it should have taken interim action, such as a mould wash, to mitigate the impact on the resident. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord did not take any action as it meant the resident was living in poor conditions for a prolonged length of time.
  13. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report entitled “Damp and mould: It’s not lifestyle” outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations’. In this case, the resident was left exposed to damp and mould in the property for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s failure to address the issue while the leak was ongoing.
  14. Once the landlord confirmed it had resolved the leak, it should have promptly completed the necessary damp and mould works to prevent any further delays. The landlord did not refer the matter to the damp and mould team to inspect until 3 April 2024, which was an unreasonable delay. It subsequently completed an inspection on 9 May 2024 which recommended an urgent temporary mould wash, and stated there was a possible ongoing leak that needed to be checked prior to redecorating.
  15. The landlord subsequently raised a further work order to investigate and ensure that all leaks had been stopped and that there was no ongoing water penetration. If the landlord had promptly raised the damp and mould inspection, following the resolution of the leak, it may have identified that there was an outstanding leak at an earlier time and prevented further delays to the resident.
  16. The resident confirmed that the leak, damp, and mould have since been resolved. The repair records state that the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 9 May 2024, temporary works, including a mould wash, on 17 May 2024, works to resolve a leak from a copper waste pipe on 6 June 2024, and damp and mould works in the hall and lounge on 1 July 2024. It therefore took almost 2 years for the landlord to resolve the leak, damp, and mould in full. This was an entirely unreasonable delay and understandably would have caused significant inconvenience to the resident.
  17. In view of the evidence, there were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the leak, damp, and mould. The landlord offered £100 compensation within its complaint response, which was not sufficient or the level of failing. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £600-£1000 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failing had a significant impact on the resident. The resident was left exposed to damp and mould in the hallway and living room for almost 2 years due to the delays in identifying and resolving the leak, and its failure to implement any interim solutions to address the damp and mould while the leak was outstanding. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns that the damp and mould was impacting her health. In view of the length of the delays, and considering the fact that the leaseholder was responsible for addressing the initial leak which was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, the landlord must pay the resident £800 compensation.
  18. The resident told the Service that she has outstanding concerns that the leak may have caused damage to the flooring, which the landlord has not addressed. It is noted that she raised the issue to the contractor on 9 May 2024, but there is no evidence that the landlord further addressed her concerns. As such, it must complete an inspection and any recommended repairs. While the landlord is responsible for any structural repairs to the flooring, it may not be responsible for repairs to the carpets, which may be an issue for the resident to refer to insurers. The landlord should provide any advice to the resident regarding repair responsibilities following the inspection.
  19. In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record-keeping – 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 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.
  20. Moreover, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into the landlord. 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 issues with the toilet flush

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to installations for sanitation. Its website states that it will repair and renew toilets as an urgent repair, which it should complete within 3 working days when there is only 1 toilet in the property. The resident told the Service that there is only 1 toilet in the property.
  2. In her complaint escalation on 30 August 2023, the resident reported that the toilet was not flushing. There is no evidence to confirm whether she reported it to the landlord at an earlier date, so it appears this was her initial report of the issue. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it inspected the faulty toilet flush on 7 September 2023 and it repaired the toilet cistern. The landlord therefore exceeded its repair response timeframe by 3 working days. While this was not necessarily a significant delay, it had a detrimental impact on the resident as she said she had to use a bucket to flush the toilet. There is also no evidence that the landlord informed her of any reasons for the delay or took steps to manage her expectations.
  3. It is noted that the landlord has not provided the corresponding repair records for the appointment on 7 September 2023, however, the resident has not disputed its version of events. Nonetheless, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate repair records to provide an audit trail.
  4. The landlord raised a further work order on 21 September 2023 as the toilet was not flushing. The repair records show it completed the repair on 19 October 2023 to renew the toilet and boxing around it. It therefore exceeded its repair timeframe by 17 working days. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated any reasons for the delay. The resident told the Service that during this time she was able to flush the toilet using bowls of water. However, there is no evidence that the landlord confirmed for itself whether she was able to use the toilet or that it suggested interim solutions. It therefore failed to ensure that she had use of sanitation facilities while the repair was outstanding.
  5. The resident told the Service on 29 November 2023 that the toilet had not been flushing for 3 months. She also contacted her councillor, who raised the concerns with the landlord on 4 December 2023. There are no repair or correspondence records to confirm whether the resident had re-raised the issue with the landlord. However, given the identified issues with the repair records, it is possible that she did, particularly as she had chased the repairs with external support services to help progress it.
  6. There is no evidence to confirm whether the landlord has taken any further actions to resolve the issues reported by the resident. The resident said the landlord replacing the toilet has somewhat improved the issue, but the flush is currently still not powerful enough and she often has to flush it with a bucket. The landlord has therefore failed to implement a full and lasting repair. The landlord is therefore ordered to complete an inspection and any recommended works to ensure the flush is sufficient.
  7. Overall, it is clear that the landlord exceeded its repair response timeframes on multiple occasions. It has also failed to demonstrate that it has considered the resident’s ongoing concerns with the strength of the toilet flush from November 2023 onwards. The ongoing repair issue has caused significant inconvenience to the resident as she is unable to use the toilet properly, and it is the only one in the property. In accordance with the Service’s remedies guidance, £350 compensation is warranted as the landlord’s failure adversely impacted the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of leak, damp, and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of issues with the toilet flush.

Orders

  1. In addition to the £100 already offered, the landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £800 for its failings in handling the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
    2. £350 for its failings in handling the resident’s reports that the toilet was not flushing correctly.
  2. The landlord must inspect the resident’s toilet and complete any required works to ensure that it is flushing correctly. It should provide the Service with a copy of the inspection report and confirmation that it has completed the necessary repairs.
  3. The landlord must inspect the resident’s flooring to address her concerns that they were damaged by the leak. It should provide the resident and the Service with the outcome of the report. It should then complete any repairs that fall into its remit of responsibility.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the investigation.