London Borough of Lambeth (202408530)

Background

1. The resident reported that his kitchen sink was blocked. The landlord booked an appointment for the next day, but the contractor did not attend. The resident subsequently arranged and paid for a private plumber and asked the landlord to reimburse the cost of this.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a blocked kitchen sink.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a blocked kitchen sink.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not carry out the qualifying repair within the expected timeframe or consider the impact of this delay on the resident.
5. The landlord did not comply with the timeframes set out in the Code or its own policy. It apologised but did not consider the impact of its delays.

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 landlord’s repair policy says routine repairs should be completed within 7 days, or within 3 days for certain qualifying repairs. It also specifies that blocked sinks should be repaired between 1 and 3 days but does not clarify whether these are working or calendar days. We have understood this to be working days, in line with the right to repair scheme.
7. The landlord booked a repair appointment for the day after it was reported, which was in line with its policy, but the contractor failed to attend. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it told the resident when the appointment would be re-booked, but the contractor next attended5 working days later, outside of the timeframe set out in its policy. However, by this time, the resident had already paid for a private repair.
8. While we understand why the resident chose to arrange this, repairs remain the landlord’s responsibility and he did not check if the landlord would be willing to cover this cost before he went ahead with the work. This meant that the landlord did not have a reasonable opportunity to either get the work completed itself or consider whether the resident should arrange this and it would cover the costs. As the landlord did not have a reasonable opportunity to consider its position before the resident arranged the works himself, it is not obliged to offer reimbursement for the resident’s privately incurred costs.
9. The landlord failed to recognise that it did not attend to the repair within the timeframe set out in its policy and it did not consider the impact of the delay on the resident. It offered £20 for the missed appointment, but this alone was not sufficient. Given the repair delay, poor communication and inconvenience incurred by the resident, further compensation of £50 is appropriate. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord has not acknowledged or fully rectified a service failure.

10. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the timescales in the Code.
11. The landlord did not comply with the timescales set out in the Code or its own policy, as it took 34 working days to respond at stage 1 and 27 days to respond at stage 2. The landlord did apologise and give a brief explanation for the delay, but it did not offer any redress for the distress and inconvenience caused by these delays. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay £50 to address the impact of these failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

12. We did not note any concerns about the landlord’s record keeping during this investigation. 

Communication

13. We have found the landlord’s communication to be lacking. It would also have been better if the landlord had explained what steps it would take to prevent complaint handling delays in the future. Effective and timely communication builds trust between landlord and tenant and shows that the resident is being listened to.