London Borough of Lewisham (202312090)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312090

Lewisham Council

30 September 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damage to her belongings.
2. The Service has also considered the landlord’s:
   1. Record keeping.
   2. Handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a flat.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 23 January 2023 as she said there had been a leak from above into her property since she had moved in. She said she felt helpless as she had experienced difficulties proving the leak to the landlord. She reported high energy bills and said she spent a lot of time cleaning water and mould and painting the property. She wanted to move as the issue was impacting her wellbeing and she had been off work for 2 years. She requested compensation for her energy bill, dehumidifier, paint, and wardrobe that was damaged by mould.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 February 2023. It said it was sorry to hear that the leak had been ongoing for 6 years. It had tried to investigate the source of the leak to assess whether it originated from the roof or the storage room above the property. The roofing contractors had recommended works to the roof and further investigation. It proposed a joint inspection with a technical surveyor on 15 February 2023. It would arrange remedial repairs, including to damp and mould, once it resolved the leak. It was unable to take responsibility for damaged items and it encouraged residents to have home contents insurance. It asked for evidence of her increased energy usage to assess her compensation request.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 April 2023 as the leak was ongoing and the landlord had not taken any steps to resolve the issue.
7. In its stage 2 response on 15 May 2023, the landlord recognised that the level of service was below the expected standards and apologised for the delays. It identified that the source of the issue was the storage room and confirmed that this would be addressed. It would undertake an inspection on 16 May 2023 and then refer the required work to a contractor to complete. It recognised the delay in pursuing the repairs led to more damage to her property and it was introducing systems to prevent this happening in the future. It noted it should have provided the resident with regular updates and the reasons for the delay.
8. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she remained dissatisfied following the landlord’s final response. She said the leak had impacted her health and finances for years and the landlord ignored her reports until there was substantial damage. She wanted the landlord to put in place a lasting repair and pay compensation for her increased energy costs and damaged items.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident said the leak had been ongoing for over 6 years. Paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The report will therefore focus on events from 23 January 2022 onwards, which was 12 months prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Any reference to events before that date is to provide contextual background. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
10. The resident has reported the leak has negatively impacted her health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of a leak and subsequent damage to her belongings

11. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the building. In line with its repairs policy, it should complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days.
12. Despite requests from the Service, the landlord has not provided a full record to demonstrate how it addressed the leak. The investigation has proceeded with the available information and the landlord’s record keeping will be assessed separately.
13. The resident raised a complaint on 23 January 2023 regarding a leak. She said water had been falling into her cooker for a few days. The landlord should have discussed the severity of the leak with the resident to determine how to properly categorise the repair. Given that the water was entering the cooker, the landlord should have assessed whether this caused a safety risk and if it should have been handled as an emergency. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed the leak until its stage 1 response on 10 February 2023, in which it proposed a joint inspection for 15 February 2023 in its stage 1 response. While this was within its timeframe for routine repairs, given that the water was entering the cooker, it should have been given greater priority.
14. The appointment was postponed until 20 February 2023 at the resident’s request as she did not have enough time to book the day off work. The landlord then told the resident on 17 February 2023 that it had proposed a site visit for 22 February 2023, but the roofing contractor had not confirmed it could attend. There is no evidence that the landlord rescheduled the appointment. This was unreasonable as it failed to demonstrate it had fulfilled the actions outlined in its complaint response or that it took any action to resolve the leak.
15. The resident chased the repair on 9 March 2023, but there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this until its final response on 15 May 2023. In its response, the landlord said it would inspect the required work to the roof storage area on 16 May 2023. The landlord therefore failed to properly engage with the resident’s reports or take accountability for the repairs outside of the complaint process. This was entirely unreasonable, and it is understandable that the resident said she felt she had to raise a complaint for the landlord to take any action. This would likely have undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord notified her of the appointment prior to the stage 2 response, so it only gave her 1 day’s notice. This is of particular concern as the resident previously had to reschedule an appointment due to the landlord not providing enough notice.
16. The Service has not seen any evidence relating to the scheduled appointment on 16 May 2023 to confirm whether it was attended or what the outcome was. The resident subsequently emailed the landlord on 8 June 2023 and said she was dissatisfied that there had been no changes following the final response. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed her concerns or took any steps to resolve the repair, which was unreasonable and further delayed resolving the matter.
17. The resident continued to chase the repair between November 2023 and January 2024 and said she was unable to raise the repair online. The landlord should ensure that its repairs process is functional and accessible so residents can effectively report repairs. This would prevent unnecessary delays and reduce the time and effort required. There is no evidence to confirm whether the leak has since been repaired.
18. Overall, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it has meaningfully engaged with the resident’s concerns or taken sufficient steps to resolve the leak or the subsequent damp and mould. While the Service cannot establish a clear timeframe of events due to the lack of evidence, it is clear the leak has been ongoing for a minimum of a year, which is an unreasonable timeframe. The resident expended substantial time and effort pursuing the repair and cleaning up water from the leak, as well as distress and inconvenience. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it ensured the resident had safe access to cooking facilities or that it considered any temporary solutions to reduce the impact of damp and mould while the repairs to the leak were outstanding.
19. The landlord recognised in its final response that its service was below the expected standard and apologised for the delays, but it failed to offer any redress to the resident. It has also failed to demonstrate that it followed through on the actions outlined in its final response to put in place a full and lasting repair. To remedy the complaint, the landlord must provide clear repair records to confirm that the leak has since been resolved or inspect the property and complete any necessary repairs to resolve the issue in full. It should then complete a damp and mould inspection and complete any recommended repairs. In addition, in line with the Service’s remedies guidance, £600 compensation is warranted as there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the case that adversely impacted the resident.
20. The landlord’s poor record keeping also prevented the Service from identifying a clear timeline of the repairs, and thus the full length of the delays. It is therefore ordered to pay the resident an additional £200 for its poor record keeping, in view of the fact the Service was unable to assess the full length of the delays.
21. The resident requested compensation for her belongings that were damaged by damp and mould. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it was unable to take responsibility for the damage and it encourages residents to have home contents insurance. This advice was in line with its tenancy agreement and its repairs policy. However, it subsequently acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the delays in its handling of the repairs had caused additional damage. As such, in line with its compensation policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided its liability insurance details to assess the resident’s claim. An order has been made below to reflect this. The landlord appropriately handled the resident’s request for compensation for increased energy usage as it requested a copy of her bills to assess her claim. It is unclear whether the landlord followed this through to completion, so a recommendation has been made to revisit this if necessary.

Record keeping

22. In this case, the landlord has failed to provide records relating to the resident’s reports of the leak. Clear record keeping is core to a repair service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what repairs are required, monitor outstanding repairs, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Clear records are also vital to providing a valuable complaint process.
23. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The landlord’s record keeping impacted the Service’s ability to determine whether it acted appropriately in the substantive complaint issue.
24. The Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) found that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.” In this case, the lack of information likely impacted the landlord’s ability to monitor the repairs and ensure that any follow-on works were promptly raised and completed.
25. As the poor record keeping prevented the Service from identifying a clear timeline of the repairs, and thus the full length of the delays, it has prevented a thorough investigation from being completed.
26. In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s record keeping – similar to those identified in case 202124577. The Ombudsman has not, however, made any further orders for it to improve this. This is because a wider order was made as part of case 202124577, which the landlord has now complied with. We expect it to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with us following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.
27. Moreover, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into the landlord. This is conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and allows us to investigate beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings. The findings of this report will therefore contribute to the outcome and action needed following the completion of the special investigation.

Complaint handling

28. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 and 3 within 20 working days.
29. The resident raised a complaint on 23 January 2023 and the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 10 February 2023. It therefore exceeded its response timeframe by 4 working days. Although it was not an excessive delay, the landlord should have informed the resident of the delay to manage her expectations. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 1 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged it on 13 April 2023 and apologised for the delay. It then issued its response on 15 May 2023, exceeding its response time by 7 working days. Again, the landlord failed to recognise or apologise for the delay in its complaint response.
30. In this case, the delays were not necessarily excessive, but it was unreasonable that the landlord overlooked the delays. Moreover, it is likely that the delays undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord to effectively put things right. Its complaint process has a provision for extending its response time by 10 working days in case it is unable to meet the initial timeframe. The landlord should have utilised this to manage the resident’s expectation about the expected timeframe.
31. The landlord also did not complete the third stage of its complaints process, despite the resident stating she was dissatisfied with the response on 8 June 2023. As the landlord did not respond, this likely meant the resident was uncertain on the next steps she could take to progress the complaint. It provided contact details for the Service but did not clearly explain her referral rights. The resident did not contact the Service until 29 September 2023, over 4 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response, and it was likely the delay was due to lack of clarity around the available options to progress the complaint.
32. It is noted that the landlord no longer has a 3-stage complaint process. This is a positive change as the Service’s complaint handling code states “a process with more than 2 stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this will make the complaint process unduly long and delay access to the Ombudsman”.
33. As the landlord has not recognised the delays or taken any steps to redress the matter, the issue remains outstanding. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, £75 compensation is warranted as there was a minor failing by the landlord for a short duration that the landlord did not acknowledge or put right.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damage to her belongings.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £800 for its failings in handling the resident’s reports of a leak.
    2. £75 for its complaint handling failures.
38. It should provide evidence of the total payment of £875 within 4 weeks of the date of the report.
39. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide clear repair records to confirm that the leak has since been resolved. If the leak remains outstanding, it should inspect the property and complete any necessary repairs to resolve the issue in full. It should provide a post-inspection report to the Service to show that the repairs are completed to a suitable standard.
40. Within 8 weeks, once the leak has been resolved, the landlord should complete a damp and mould inspection and provide the Service with a copy of the report. It should then arrange any necessary repairs to resolve the damp and mould and provide the Service with a post-works inspection of the works to confirm they are completed to a suitable standard.
41. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should provide the resident with its liability insurance details and explain to the resident how she can progress a claim for her damaged belongings.
42. The landlord should provide the Service with evidence that it has complied with the orders within the relevant timeframes.

Recommendations

43. If it has not provided compensation for increased energy usage already, the landlord should give the resident a further opportunity to provide evidence of her increased energy bills so it can assess her claim.
44. The landlord should review its complaint handling practices to ensure it responds to complaints within the relevant timeframes and provided clear referral rights.