London Borough of Lambeth (202346606)

Background

1. In October 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about the outstanding repairs present when she moved into the property. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and in March 2024, brought her complaint to this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:

1. The landlord’s handling of void works and follow on repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. void works and follow on repairs.
   2. the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The void works and follow on repairs

4. The property did not meet the landlord’s lettable standard at the start of the tenancy. Defects remained outstanding and the landlord failed to resolve them within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord also failed to effectively manage and coordinate the works, which caused the resident avoidable distress, uncertainty and inconvenience.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord failed to provide its stage 1 response within a reasonable timeframe. When it did respond, it failed to address key elements of the resident’s initial complaint. In its stage 2 response, it acknowledged failings and delays. However, it failed to provide a clear explanation for delays, adequately identify learning, or explain how it would embed learnings into practice. It also failed to offer proportionate redress for the impact of these failings.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The Ombudsman typically investigates events within a 12-month period, usually 12 months prior to the landlord’s stage 2 response. We understand that the landlord’s handling of the void repairs continued beyond that point, however any reference to events beyond May 2024 is for context only.
7. The landlord’s void lettable standard requires that properties will be safe, clean and in good state of repair prior to the start of the tenancy. The includes ensuring that key elements such as plumbing, drainage, doors, windows, and internal finishes are in working order. The standard also states that any health and safety risks, including damp and asbestos, are appropriately identified and addressed before the property is let.
8. The resident viewed and accepted the property in June 2023. Shortly after moving in, the resident reported a range of outstanding repairs that the landlord had not completed at void stage.
9. This Service has seen a large works order raised by the landlord in August 2023. Not all works noted on the order were a requirement of the void lettable standard, but several key elements of the property were not in a satisfactory condition at the point of letting. In particular, we note the following:
   1. Bathroom and sanitary facilities required repair and replacement works, including issues with the toilet, basin, and associated pipework.
   2. The kitchen required replacement of units.
   3. Internal and external doors required repair, adjustment and in some cases renewal.
   4. Windows required overhaul and repair to handles and mechanisms.
   5. The property required a full clearance and a deep clean.
   6. There were defects to ceilings and internal fabric requiring repair.
   7. The roof required repair and there were reports of damp ingress.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that routine repairs should be completed within 28 days and planned works within 90 days. On the works order seen by this Service, the target timescale to complete the works in the property was 10 working days. But the landlord did not fully complete the works until November 2024.
11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident that it is “not uncommon for properties to be let with works outstanding.” Notwithstanding this comment the landlord has a lettable standard in place and the evidence seen demonstrate that this was not fully met.
12. The landlord’s management of the works was also inadequate. We have seen evidence of repeated inspections, and piecemeal identification of additional defects over an extended period of time between August 2023 and March 2024.
13. In order for the landlord to complete the outstanding works, the resident was required to move out of the property and return to her former address between 10 April 2024 to 25 November 2024. This caused prolonged time, trouble and distress for the resident and her family.
14. Taking the above into account, the volume and nature of the outstanding works demonstrate that the property was not in a condition that met the landlord’s lettable standard at the start of the tenancy. We are satisfied that the landlord’s lack of timely and cohesive actions resulted in unreasonable delay in resolving the outstanding repairs. This could not but have caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family. Therefore, this Service finds Maladministration.

15. At the time of this complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement and its stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The resident complained on 8 October 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 1 response 130 working days later. On the 17 April, the resident requested escalation to stage 2, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response 26 working days later.
16. It failed to acknowledge her complaint and failed to contact her to request an extension at both stages of the complaint process, contrary to its policy aims and published timescales.
17. We have also seen evidence of poor and inconsistent communication throughout the complaint process. The resident was required to repeatedly chase for updates, and the landlord informed her that different officers would take ownership of the complaint but failed to provide consistent follow-up.
18. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not adequately capture and address the substance of the resident’s complaint. The evidence seen demonstrates that the landlord failed to address or fully investigate all the key issues of complaint raised. For example, when the resident requested clear information on the duration of the works and when the landlord intended to start. The landlord told her that it had “not been given the history of the case” and it will only be able to provide a start date once its surveyor reassesses the property.
19. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had issued its stage 1 response late, but it did not record a reason for the delay. Indicating a failure in record keeping and oversight. While the stage 2 response provided some further explanation, it did not fully remedy earlier failings.
20. Additionally, the landlord’s response to compensation was unclear and insufficiently explained. While a goodwill payment was offered, the landlord stated that it would only award compensation in “exceptional circumstances,” without clearly defining what this meant. This lack of clarity undermines transparency and does not demonstrate that the landlord considered an appropriate level of redress in line with its own published policy.
21. Overall, the landlord failed to respond in a reasonable timeframe, failed to communicate effectively, failed to capture and investigate all aspects of the complaint, and failed to provide a clear and lasting resolution with appropriate redress. These failings amount to Maladministration. We have made an order for the landlord to pay £150, for the impacts of these failings.

Learning

22. This case highlights the importance of ensuring that all complaint responses are timely, clearly evidenced and address all aspects of the complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord should ensure that accurate and complete records are maintained, including documenting reasons for delays and actions taken throughout the complaint process.

Communication

24. The landlord did not provide clear or consistent communications to the resident in respect of the ongoing void related repairs.