London Borough of Lambeth (202401051)

Background

1. The resident complained that an appointment was booked for 30 January 2024 for a mould wash and he took time off work for this, but the landlord’s contractor did not attend, which meant he had a loss of earnings.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handing of:
   1. A mould wash to the property.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of a mould wash to the property.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

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

Reasons

Handling of a mould wash to the property.

5. On 10 January 2024, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property for a mould wash. Due to the amount of work required, a further appointment was necessary to complete the works. The resident stated the contractor told him it had booked an appointment for 30 January 2024 and confirmed this with its offices over the phone whilst at the property.
6. On 30 January 2024, the resident waited for the contractor and as it did not turn up, he called the contractor directly as he had its phone number from the previous visit. The contractor advised that it was on another job and would not be attending. The resident subsequently raised a complaint with the landlord on 3 February 2024 as he was not happy that he took time off work for the contractor not to turn up to his property.
7. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it booked a follow up appointment for 28 January 2024 and not 30 January 2024. But the resident disagrees. It is also worth noting that no contractor attended on either of these dates.
8. There is no evidence in the landlord’s repairs log to suggest it had scheduled an appointment to complete the mould wash for either 28 or 30 January 2024. A note on the repair dated 6 February 2024 records that the landlord contacted its contractor which “confirmed it wasn’t rebooked originally and has now rebooked for 28th.” It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there was no appointment booked prior to this. The landlord appears to have confused its months when telling the resident an appointment had been scheduled for 28 January 2024, when in fact this was booked for 28 February 2024. While we do not dispute the landlord’s contractor may have told the resident it would return on 30 January 2024, we do not have any evidence to confirm this.
9. The resident then called the landlord on 8 February 2024 to reschedule the appointment for 1 March 2024. On 1 March 2024, the contractor failed to attend for the scheduled repair. The resident contacted the landlord about this, which recorded that he was “distressed” and “very annoyed”. The landlord noted that the contractor had marked the repair as complete. Neither the landlord nor its contractor has provided an explanation for this. The landlord raised a new repair order on 7 March 2024 and booked an appointment for 22 March 2024.
10. The resident had already escalated his complaint prior to this, on 29 February 2024, due to disagreeing with the content of the landlord’s stage 1 response. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 April 2024. It stated that it could not see any evidence of a missed appointment by its contractor – despite the evidence we have outlined above.
11. The landlord also confirmed an appointment for 30 April 2024 to complete the mould wash. However, based upon the landlord’s repair logs this seems to be a duplicate appointment as it is evident that the mould wash had already been completed on 22 March 2024. This was a further failing by the landlord to appropriately review its own repairs logs as a part of its complaint investigation.
12. In summary, the evidence suggests that the landlord:

a)     Failed to book a follow-on appointment to complete the mould wash until 6 February 2024.

b)     Incorrectly told the resident that a follow-on appointment had been arranged for 28 January 2024, rather than 28 February 2024.

c)     Failed to acknowledge that its contractor had not attended a scheduled appointment on 1 March 2024.

d)     Failed to identify that the mould wash had already been completed by the time of its stage 2 response.

13. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £50. It said this was to reflect “the time it has taken to resolve issues and the handling of the works”. This offer did not appropriately reflect the failings listed above, which the landlord has failed to acknowledge. Due to this we make a finding of service failure and order the landlord to pay a further £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount is in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances where “There was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right,”
14. The resident requested reimbursement for lost wages due to the missed appointment. The landlord’s compensation policy says only that it will offer £20 for a missed repairs appointment. It makes no mention of reimbursing loss of earnings for this. Our remedies guidance outlines that we will not generally order compensation for loss of earnings whilst repairs are carried out. This is because residents are required to arrange access for repairs to be carried out under the terms of their tenancy agreement.
15. Accordingly, we have not ordered reimbursement for lost wages. However, we have awarded compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and ordered the landlord to pay the £20 its policy requires for a missed appointment.

Complaint handling

16. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will issue complaint acknowledgements within 5 working days. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
17. The resident raised his complaint on 3 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 7 February 2024 and sent its stage 1 response on 23 February 2024, which was 5 working days late. The resident then escalated his complaint on 29 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 8 March 2024 (1 working day late), and sent its final response on 9 April 2024, which was 6 days late.
18. Although there were delays in its stage 1 and 2 responses and its stage 2 acknowledgement, these were minor delays which did not affect the outcome of the complaint and the detriment to the resident from these was limited. Due to this we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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.