London Borough of Lambeth (202432059)

Background

1. On 30 September 2024, the resident reported that water was not draining from the bath. An operative identified that the drainage issue was affecting multiple properties in the block, and that a drainage contractor was required to carry out the repair. On 8 October 2024, a drainage contractor resolved the issue. The resident is dissatisfied that the household was unable to use the water for 10 days and wants to be compensated for the inconvenience.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Drainage repair.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of drainage repair.
4. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord took 8 days to fix the blocked bath. It failed to consider the resident’s loss of bathing facilities or address the delay during the complaints process.
6. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint handling policy.

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.

7. On 30 September 2024, the resident reported that water was not draining from the bath. The landlord raised works on the same day and an operative attended the following day. The operative found that the drainage issue affected multiple properties in the block. This response was appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s routine repair timescales of 1 to 3 calendar days, which include a blocked bath.
8. The works were complex and therefore the landlord passed the job to a drainage contractor on the same day, with a target completion date of 9 October 2024. The drainage subcontractor attended on 8 October 2024 and resolved the issue. The repair took 8 calendar days and although this met the subcontractor’s service level agreement (“SLA”), it exceeded the 1 to 3 calendar days routine repair timescale. We did not see any evidence showing that the SLA took priority over the routine timescales or that the landlord reclassified the repair. As such, the repair was delayed and not in accordance with the landlord’s routine timescales.
9. During the 8-day repair period, the resident reported the adverse impact of being unable to bathe. He also submitted a complaint on 2 October 2024 and chased the repair on 4 October 2024. We did not see any record of the landlord considering the impact on the household of being without bathing facilities for over a week. This consideration would have been reasonable and would have allowed it to discuss any steps to mitigate the impact. It is important that landlords demonstrate that they took all reasonable and appropriate steps to complete the repair and to minimise the adverse impact, distress, and inconvenience to the household. Its failure to do so was unreasonable.
10. The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaints handling process and therefore made no attempt to put things right. The resident stated that he should receive compensation for the inconvenience. The landlord’s complaints policy allows compensation for service failures, including unjustified delays.
11. The repair was delayed, the household was unable to use the bath for 8 calendar days, and the landlord did not attempt to put things right during the complaints process. Therefore, we found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the drainage repair. We have ordered the landlord to pay £70 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay.

12. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 October 2024, 7 working days after the complaint was submitted. This was in accordance with its complaints policy.
13. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 11 October 2024 and the landlord responded on 18 November 2024, after 21 working days. A delay of 1 day was minimal and had no adverse impact on the resident.
14. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Learning

15. The landlord should consider whether the repair and contractor target timescales are aligned and reflect the urgency of the repair.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The landlord displayed good record keeping practice which allowed us to establish what went wrong and the measures required to put things right.

Communication

17. The landlord’s communication with the resident could have been better. The resident had to chase the repair and if clear information about the subcontractor’s timescales had been provided this could have been avoided.