London Borough of Lambeth (202322849)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322849

Lambeth Council

3 April 2025

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 about:
   1. Service charges.
   2. Estate grounds maintenance.
   3. Gutter repairs.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Service charges

3. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme says that the Service may not investigate complaints concerning matters where the Ombudsman considers “it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
4. Part of the resident’s complaint concerns her liability to pay service charges and whether the demand for payment she received met the conditions under Section 20.b. of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
5. The First Tier Tribunal Property Chamber (FTT) deals with service charge disputes between leaseholders and their landlords. The FTT can make determinations on questionsof reasonableness and liability to pay service charges.As such, this aspect of the resident complaint will not be investigated in this report.

Background

6. The resident is the leaseholder of a flat in a residential block owned by the landlord.
7. On 13 March 2023, the resident reported a gutter leak. The landlord raised the repair with a target completion date of 21 April 2023. The resident chased the repairs throughout April and May 2023. She also raised concerns about the cost of the communal cleaning service. She raised a formal complaint in July 2023. She said:
   1. The cleaner had told her they were responsible for cleaning the building’s interior. She wanted to know who was responsible for cleaning the outside. She said she had previously reported to the housing officer that standards had fallen.
   2. She was still waiting to hear about the gutter repair.
8. The landlord responded on 17 August 2023. It said:
   1. It had requested the housing officer to inspect the property and take the necessary action. It provided the resident with the officer’s contact details.
   2. It had asked that the gutter repair be scheduled at the earliest opportunity.
9. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 August 2023. She said:
   1. She wanted to know who was responsible forkeeping the building exterior clean.
   2. She had received no explanationor warning about delays to the gutter repair.
10. The landlord sent its final response letter on 22 September 2023:
    1. It stated that the resident had sent pictures showing her areas of concern with the cleaning. These areas were under the responsibility of the housing officer as per its stage 1 response. However, it provided the name of the contractor responsible for cleaning the building’s exterior.
    2. It confirmed that the gutter repair was completed on 6 September 2023.
11. The resident brought her complaint to the Service on 3 October 2023. She asked us to investigate her complaint, highlighting her concerns about liability for service charges.

Assessment and findings

12. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.

Estate grounds maintenance

13. The resident asked the landlord to clarify who was responsible for cleaning outside the property. She sent pictures showing that the area of concern was the open walkway outside her property.
14. The landlord identified that the area concerned was under the supervision of its housing officer. In its complaint response, it said it had asked that the housing officer inspect the areas that the resident had highlighted and take the necessary actions to improve its service. It provided the resident with the contact details for the housing officer.
15. In its stage 2 letter, the landlord stated that although the resident inquired about the contractor responsible for the external areas, her photographs related to internal areas, which were under the supervision of its housing officer. Nevertheless, it provided the resident with the details of the contractor responsible for the external areas, as she had requested.
16. The landlord provided us with evidence that after the final response letter, it conducted estate walkabouts in February, March, and April 2024. The evidence shows that any issues identified were documented and marked for follow-up action.
17. Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s feedback and queries,and took appropriate action to address her concerns and improve its services. .

Gutter repairs

18. According to the landlord’s repair policy, gutter repairs should be completed within 90 days. The resident reported the repair on 13 March 2023. The repair was completed 85 days later, on 6 September 2023, within the time frame set in its policy.
19. However, the resident was initially given a target date in April. She subsequently chased the landlord for updates throughout April and May, as well as during the stages of the landlord’s internal complaint process in July and August 2023. The resident’s frustration due to the lack of information and communication with the landlord was evident, such as in her May 2023 email to the landlord, in which She said she had spent “every lunch hour” attempting to reach the repair line but was unsuccessful, and her emails to the repair team had gone unanswered.
20. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that when things have gone wrong, a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken or intends to take to put things right.
21. There is no evidence that the landlord recognised shortcomings in its communications with the resident. It failed toinvestigate what had gone wrong, and asa result, its stage 1 complaint response was incomplete.
22. Although the repair was completed shortly after the resident’s escalation request, the landlord failed in its final response letter to recognise it had missed the timescales it had given the resident and then not given her updates or managed her expectations. Consequently, it failed to put things right and to learn from the outcome. This was counter to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principlesamounted to a service failure.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about her service charges is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in handling the resident’s reports about estate cleaning.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in handling the resident’s reports about gutter repairs.

Orders

26. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident directly £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the gutter repair. Evidence of compliance must be provided to the Service.
27. In recent months, the Service has been working with the landlord to improve aspects of its complaint handling and communications. For this reason, we have not made further orders for the landlord in regard to this case.