London Borough of Lambeth (202233709)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233709

Lambeth Council

19 June 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of blockages in the resident’s kitchen.
2. Reports of mice infestation in the property.
3. Reports of a lack of fire escape provision.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat within a larger block.
The resident is partially sighted. The landlord has noted that the resident is vulnerable.
The resident reported a blockage in her kitchen sink in August 2022. The landlord attended the following day to unblock the sink. The resident raised a new report on 17 August 2022, and again on 31 August 2022. The landlord’s records note that despite contractors attending, the issue was not resolved. A new job was raised for a specialist drainage contractor. The specialist contractor attended on 27 September 2022 but was unable to gain access to the property.
The resident made a new report on 19 December 2022, following which a regular contractor came out and again the works were passed to the specialist drainage contractor. The specialists attended on 3 January 2023, and it was believed that following this, the problem may have been resolved. However, the resident reported a new blockage on 6 January 2023. The landlord said its contractors attended on 30 March 2023 but they failed to submit a report of their visit.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 April 2023 to raise a complaint as:
1. She had been suffering with sink blockages since April 2022 with no resolution. She felt it was not the internal drainage causing the issues but an issue with the pipework of the block at large.
2. She said the blockage had attracted mice which had distressed her greatly as well as causing destruction. She said that, due to being severely blind and disabled, she was unable to clean up mice droppings and asked the landlord to send someone to deal with the issue.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 May 2023. It said it partially upheld the complaint as there had unreasonable delays in service. It said it had still not identified the source of the problem and confirmed a new appointment for contractors to attend on 9 May 2023. The landlord sent a follow-up letter on 5 July 2023, confirming its contractors attended and unblocked the sink. It added that the contractor had recommended alterations to the pipework which the landlord said it would be following up on.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 July 2023, escalating her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. The resident said she had yet to hear any updates about the repairs, and that the ongoing problems with mice remained. She raised additional issues about a partially working entry-phone system, the windows within her property and she raised concerns about fire safety within the property. She said there had been a fire incident and she had been unable to properly access the fire escape.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 December 2023. This dealt only with the blocked sink aspect of the resident’s complaint. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the related distress and inconvenience. It also said that it had tried to contact her on several occasions to arrange access for contractors but had been unable to do so. It confirmed an appointment for a surveyor to attend had now been arranged for 29 December 2023.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 10 January 2024, querying if the mouse infestation and other issues had been dealt with in a separate complaint. The landlord confirmed they had not. The landlord then sent the resident a follow-up stage 2 complaint response on 16 January 2024, saying that it had conducted an inspection of the property on 29 December 2023 and following this, it had raised work orders to replace the kitchen door, overhaul all window handles and apply sealant to the boiler. This inspection also noted that there was a fire escape on the main hallway leading to the property. The landlord also stated that following the inspection, no works could be completed to deal with the mice due to issues of clutter within the property. The landlord said a vulnerability check had been scheduled for additional assistance.
The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman on 6 February 2024 that she wished for us to consider her complaint. She was unhappy with the landlord’s progress in dealing with the mice issue and said she had to pile items up on counters to prevent contamination. The resident also said she was unhappy with the landlord’s assertion that contractors were unable to access the property. She felt the landlord had not properly scheduled the appointments and expected her to be available at the date and time of its choosing. In a later letter, the resident confirmed that she did not wish to complain about any outstanding repairs in the property. To resolve her complaints, the resident has said she wishes for the outstanding issues to be resolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of blockages in the resident’s kitchen

The tenancy agreement set out that the landlord ‘will keep in proper working order any fittings for supplying water, gas or electricity, toilet facilities and non-temporary space and water heating inside your property which we provided’. The landlord’s repair policy has a number of timescales for completing repairs. A blocked sink falls under routine repairs, and it is listed as repair that will be completed within 1 to 3 days.
The resident has reported new blockages on more than 10 occasions, with the landlord raising new work orders in each instance. The majority of these appointments appear to have been primarily raised to unblock the sink. The landlord did call upon specialist drainage contractors in some instances. Whilst it is not clear what has happened since the complaint was brought to the Ombudsman earlier this year, it appears from the landlord’s records that the resident has continued to report new blockages in the pipework.
This means that the landlord has failed to identify or rectify the exact cause of the blockages despite the problems having been ongoing since at least August 2022 and a potential issue with the main external drain being identified at least as early as January 2023. This is just shy of 2 years, meaning the resident has suffered with blockages and not been able to fully utilise her kitchen or her appliances throughout this period of time.
The landlord should have performed a full survey of the installation at large, including the external pipes, in order to locate the root cause of the problem. Given the number of times the landlord had sent contractors to unblock the resident’s sink and internal piping, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem may lie outside of the resident’s pipework and the landlord should have taken the opportunity to investigate further.
The landlord acknowledged its delays in resolving the resident’s plumbing blockages and offered her £100 compensation for this. Given the length of time the problem has remained ongoing and the likely distress and inconvenience this has caused to the resident, this is not a sufficient offer of redress from the landlord.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of blockages represents maladministration. The landlord failed to properly identify the issue or work towards a resolution of the problem, despite the resident continuing to report the same ongoing issue. For this failing the landlord should pay the resident £850 compensation, inclusive of its previous offer of £100. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends amounts in this range for ‘a failure which had a significant impact on the resident’.
The landlord should also perform a survey of the pipework attached to the resident’s property to identify the cause of the blockages. It should then put into place an action plan to resolve this, including providing the resident with a full schedule of works.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice infestation

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord ‘is responsible for dealing with infestations of pests and vermin if pests can get in because of disrepair such as a hole in the wall or badly fitted pipes’. The landlord’s repair policy also says that it will deal with routine repairs within 28 days of the issue being reported to it.
The resident first mentioned the infestation in the property when raising her complaint in April 2023. The landlord did not take any action in relation to this until December 2023 when it inspected the property. This delay in responding to the resident’s concerns was a clear failure in service.
From the evidence available to the Ombudsman, it appears that the landlord has taken some action in the period after the stage 2 complaint response to deal with the infestation. However, it is unclear exactly what has been done or if the issue has been resolved and the evidence indicates that the holes the mice have been using to access the property remain an issue.
The landlord stated that following its May 2024 inspection, it is unable to take any action regarding the infestation or send in contractors due to the state of the property. The landlord has described the property as very cluttered and said that it has concerns that the property shows signs of hoarding.
Despite these concerns, the landlord cannot however refuse to act. This is especially true in circumstances where the resident is vulnerable. Due to the resident’s eyesight, there are several potential health hazards that could occur due to an untreated mouse infestation.
The landlord inspected the property and performed a vulnerability assessment. It is of concern that it has not demonstrated that is has put into place an adequate plan for providing the resident with the necessary support to manage the situation, or to deal with the mice infestation. The landlord does have a self-neglect and hoarding policy. The Ombudsman would therefore expect that the landlord follows the steps in this to provide the resident with appropriate support. The landlord’s policy has 5 steps:
1. Referral
2. Assessment
3. Establishing the risk
4. Agree a plan
5. Review progress
The landlord therefore needs to follow this policy in order to help the resident manage the situation and clear the property in order for it to be able to perform the necessary works to remedy the infestation. The landlord should outline an action plan with clear and reasonable timeframes for the practical steps it will be taking in order to manage both issues.
The landlord’s handling of the reports of a mouse infestation represented maladministration. The resident has serious vulnerabilities, and the landlord has failed to act appropriately to deal with the issue in line with these. The landlord failed to respond in a reasonable timescale and it is of concern that since the end of the complaints process, it has not acted in accordance with its own policies to manage the obstacles it says are in the way of rectifying the pest infestation.
For its failings, the landlord should pay the resident £500 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there has been ‘a failure which had a significant impact on the resident’.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a lack of fire escape provision

In her letter to the landlord on 11 July 2023, the resident mentioned that she had concerns about the fire safety of the building. She mentioned an incident on 2 June 2023 where the fire brigade was unable to access the building due to the entry phone system being broken and that she was unable to access the fire escape. She also raised concerns that the fire brigade had informed the landlord of a need to provide a fire escape but that it had failed to do so.
Following its visit on 29 December 2023, the landlord noted that there was a fire escape on the resident’s floor. This fire escape appears to lead into the canteen of a university that shares the building with residents. From the landlord’s correspondence with the university that it has provided, it appears that the resident may have placed a lock on this fire escape due to fears about unauthorised access. The university has also requested that this fire escape be removed.
The landlord has arranged for the replacement of the resident’s door with a fire-safe door following its visit. This was good practice for the landlord in addressing the resident’s concerns.
However, given the resident’s serious concerns, it is unreasonable that the landlord does not appear to have discussed the layout of the building in regard to fire safety until April 2024. This delay is of particular concern given the resident’s vulnerabilities and limited vision.
The landlord therefore needs to undertake a fire risk assessment of the property in order to identify any potential risks and put in place any necessary actions that this recommends. Given that the landlord has raised concerns about clutter and hoarding, it should also consider this as part of this assessment. A copy of this fire risk assessment should be provided to the resident.
The landlord’s delay in properly reviewing the resident’s fire safety concerns or undertaking a fire risk assessment represented maladministration. For failing to handle these concerns appropriately, the landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends amounts in this region for failures which have adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. At stage 1 of the complaints process, it says it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and provide a response within a further 10 days. At stage 2, the landlord says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within a further 20 working days. The timescales for these policies are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The resident’s stage 1 complaint response was provided within 14 days of the complaint being received, although there is no evidence of the landlord providing an acknowledgement to this complaint. Nevertheless, the resident received the response within the timescales the landlord outlines in its policy.
The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 11 July 2023. The landlord did not provide its initial stage 2 complaint response until 27 December 2023. This was despite being chased by the Ombudsman on several occasions. This was 119 working days after the resident’s escalation request.
The landlord also failed to properly address all of the issues raised by the resident whilst the complaint was ongoing. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to mention the mouse infestation, despite this being raised in April 2022 as part of the original complaint, as did its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns about fire safety.
It was at the landlord’s discretion if it chose to log separate complaints for new issues raised through the complaints process but its actions in overlooking these matters and note explaining its approach to the resident represented maladministration. The landlord’s failure to either address the issues in its complaint responses or raise new, separate complaints blocked the resident’s access to the complaints process and thereby made it more difficult for her to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman.
For its complaint handling failures, the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation. This is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience its failures likely caused the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of blockages in the resident’s kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a lack of fire escape provision.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1,800 compensation, consisting of:
  1. £850 for its failures handling the reports of a blocked sink;
  2. £500 for its failures handling the reports of a mouse infestation;
  3. £250 for its failures in handling the reports of fire safety issues;
  4. £200 for its failures handling the complaint.
2. Apologise to the resident in writing for each of these failings.
3. Perform a survey of the entire pipework attached to the resident’s property to identify the cause of the regular blockages. Within 2 weeks of that survey, it should create an action plan to resolve any faults identified and provide the resident with a full schedule of works.
4. If it has not already done so, perform a survey of the mouse infestation. Within 2 weeks of that survey, the landlord should create action plan containing clear and reasonable timeframes for any works/treatment and send a copy to the resident. If the landlord is of the view that the condition of the property means further assistance is needed, it should confirm how it will follow the steps it says it will take in its self-neglect/hoarding policy.
5. If it has not already done so, undertake a fire risk assessment of the property. Within 2 weeks of that assessment, it should advise the resident and this Service of the outcome, including any potential risks identified and actions that it will take in response.
The landlord must reply to this Service within the timescales set out above to evidence its compliance with these orders.