London Borough of Lambeth (202403107)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403107

Lambeth Council

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of structural damage to the external bay window support pillars.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 1-bedroom first-floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the building.
In December 2019 the resident reported concerns regarding the structural safety of the external pillars that support the bay window. The landlord attended on 30 December 2019 and concluded that the “concrete column to first floor bay window needed sand and cement filling”.
In October 2020 the landlord erected scaffolding at the property. The resident reports that the landlord did not carry out any investigations or remedial works and the scaffolding was removed sometime in 2021.
Between June 2022 and September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on a number of occasions to report the same issue. A job was scheduled for 5 October 2022, but the landlord did not attend.
On 23 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and expressed his dissatisfaction at the lack of communication. He asked the landlord to raise this as a complaint. There is no evidence that this happened.
The landlord carried out a further inspection on 3 November 2022. On this occasion it concluded that the damage was cosmetic only. A repair was raised to fill and paint the pillars on 17 January 2023. It is unclear from the evidence provided why this job was not completed. The landlord’s repair log shows that further jobs were raised but not completed in April, May and July 2023.
On 12 July 2023, the resident again raised a complaint with the landlord. He said that the repair had been raised and closed on multiple occasions and that the landlord had repeatedly allocated the job to an incorrect contractor. He was concerned that the crumbling structure was a health and safety risk.
The landlord carried out another survey on 15 August 2023 and an order was raised for scaffolding to be erected. Following this inspection, the resident contacted the landlord to ask when the scaffolding would be erected and what the repairs would entail. There is no evidence that the landlord responded. The scaffolding was erected on 6 October 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 November 2023. It said that a surveyor did attend the property and noticed a loose “decorative” pillar at the first floor bay window. It advised that it was unable to inspect the site until a scaffolding tower was erected. Once erected it would return to identify which works need to be addressed.
The resident escalated his complaint on the same day. He said:
1. Scaffolding had been up for 7 weeks, and no-one had carried out the inspection.
2. He had emailed and called the surveyor “numerous times” but received no response.
3. It was not the first-time scaffolding had been erected without any works taking place.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 January 2024. It apologised to the resident and said that:
1. The works to address the cracks on the stone pillars were raised on 1 September 2023. A specialist brickwork contractor would attend on 8 January 2024 to carry out a further assessment before finalising a scope of works.
2. Subject to dates available from contractors, the works should be completed by week ending 19 January 2024.
3. As a gesture of goodwill, it offered £50 compensation for time and trouble.

Events post complaint

Following the landlord’s final response, the evidence shows that it did not complete the repairs on 19 January 2024.
In August 2024, the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised for the further delay and said that:
1. It was concerned about how the roof of the bay could be supported during repairs, and so a full structural survey was required.
2. The structural engineers had been instructed to survey the entire bay structure, including the roof, stonework, brickwork, windows and all surrounding components.
3. Following this survey, the works would be put out to tender.
4. As a leaseholder, prior to any works commencing the resident would be provided with a copy of the specified works via the Section 20 process.
At the time of this investigation, the resident informed this Service that he had not received any further updates from the landlord. He advised that the scaffolding had been removed but he was unclear what, if any, repairs or surveys had taken place.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is evident from the timeline above that the resident has been reporting concerns about the structural safety of the pillars since December 2019, but did not attempt to raise a complaint with the landlord about this matter until October 2022. Under paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of a member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time of the matters arising. At the time of the resident’s complaint, ‘a reasonable time’ was defined as ‘normally 6 months’ (although it has since been increased to 12).
With that in mind, this investigation is focused on events from June 2022 onwards. Anything that happened before this date is considered for context but is not assessed or determined as part of this investigation.

Structural concerns

Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of all structural parts of the premises, including the roof, main timbers, joists and window frames. The lease obliges the leaseholder to pay a proportion of related costs incurred by the landlord in respect of this responsibility. The landlord’s repairs manual requires it to complete routine repairs within 28 working days and planned repairs within 90 days, including works to prevent problems arising in the future.
It is evident that the landlord had been aware of the resident’s concerns for some time prior to his initial request to raise a complaint in October 2022. The resident had sent several emails to the landlord between June 2022 and October 2022, stating that the pillars had significant cracks and were crumbling. He was increasingly concerned that they may fall and cause injury. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s emails. This lack of communication did nothing to assure the resident that his concerns were being taken seriously and was a common theme throughout the complaint. He did not receive any unprompted updates from the landlord and was left to continuously chase for information, which was not forthcoming.
When deciding on how best to proceed with a repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the landlord’s surveyor concluded in November 2022 that the damage was cosmetic rather than structural. It was, however, inappropriate that the landlord did not follow up and complete the required cosmetic repairs in accordance with its obligations. If its position was that it did not believe it had a responsibility to carry out cosmetic works, it should have informed the resident of this.
Furthermore, given the resident’s concerns regarding safety, it would have been reasonable for the surveyor to relay their findings to the resident to demonstrate that they had appropriately assessed the risk and to confirm the landlord’s position. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated its findings until a further survey was carried out in August 2024, more than 12 months after the resident’s complaint. This was an unacceptable period of time.
In addition to the above, it is apparent from the evidence that the delays were further exacerbated by the landlord allocating works to the wrong contractor. The fact that this happened on more than one occasion is concerning and undoubtedly caused further distress and frustration for the resident. When a landlord is at fault, it should put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong, and outlining what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. In this case, the landlord did not acknowledge its error or demonstrate any learning.
At both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaint, the landlord committed to resolving the issues, but again did not adequately apologise or address the reasons for the delay. It made assurances that works would be completed by specific dates, but did not subsequently fulfil this commitment. Therefore, it did not do as it said it would. Within its final response the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation in respect of time and trouble. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this did not go far enough to reflect the significant failures and the impact upon the resident.
In summary, the landlord has failed to resolve the issue in line with its obligations set out in the lease and its own internal repairs policy. It has not provided reasonable reassurance to the resident that the structure is sound and does not pose a health and safety concern. Furthermore, its poor communication contributed to unacceptable delays and caused avoidable distress to the resident. These failures, compounded by the landlord’s lack of ownership and appropriate redress, amount to maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a 2-stage process with written responses provided to residents within 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively.
Within an email dated 23 October 2022, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction and specifically requested that a complaint be raised. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this request or raised a complaint in line with its policy. This was a significant failure by the landlord and a missed opportunity to put matters right at a much earlier stage.
A stage 1 complaint was later raised on 12 July 2023. However, the resident did not receive a response until 1September 2023, 37 working days later, which was outside of the 10-working-day response time. The stage 2 response also exceed the timeframe by 8working days. This failure to adhere to policy timeframes was further exacerbated by the fact that the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for its delayed responses at either stage. As a result, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £200 compensation to recognise the impact of these failings on the resident.
In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. We continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance, reaching findings of maladministration and severe maladministration following investigations into 20 separate complaints from residents.
In June 2023 we informed the landlord of our intention to carry out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In January 2024 we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement.
In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We have therefore ordered the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of January 2024.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of structural damage to the external bay window support pillars.
2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:

Write to the resident within 6 weeks (extended due to the Christmas period) to apologise for the failings identified in this report. It should:
1. Accept responsibility for these and acknowledge the impact on him.
2. Outline why these occurred and how it proposes to prevent them from occurring again in the future.
3. Provide evidence in the form of a structural survey that a full investigation has taken place and that the pillars do not pose a health and safety risk. If the landlord has not yet obtained a structural survey report, or is unable to confirm the safety of the pillars, it should arrange for a survey to be completed by a suitably qualified specialist within a further 8 weeks. It should then provide a copy of the report to the resident and this Service.
4. Provide a detailed summary of what cosmetic works will be carried out, including a realistic timescale.
Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,000 within 6 weeks, which is broken down into:
1. £800 to recognise his distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble from its poor handling of the structural repairs.
2. £200 to recognise its poor complaint handling.
As per paragraph 29 of this report, the landlord must consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of January 2024. Evidence of this must be provided to this Service within 10 weeks.