London Borough of Lewisham (202442128)

Background

1. The resident is disabled and has multiple health issues. The property is a mid-terraced house, has wooden sash windows, and is in a conservation area.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to:
   1. The stairs.
   2. The windows.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the stairs.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows.
6. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the stairs

7. The landlord did not take reasonable action to investigate the stairs until 8 months after the resident had raised the issue. It missed 3 opportunities to take reasonable action at an earlier date.

 Repairs to the windows

8. The landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to the window replacement has been poor.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. There were unnecessary delays and it did not use the complaints process to put things right.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

What we did not consider

10. The resident has said how the situation has impacted her physical and mental health. We cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
11. The resident raised concerns about other issues with the property. These included with the bedroom door and energy efficiency. The resident has not raised the bedroom door issue with us, and there was no evidence of the energy efficiency issue being raised consistently through the full complaints process. As a result, the landlord has not had a proper opportunity to investigate and resolve them. Therefore, they are not considered in this investigation.

12. The landlord’s repairs policy (January 2024) says:
    1. It will keep in good repair the structure of the property.
    2. Urgent repairs where there is a possible health, safety or security risk should be responded to within 3 working days.
    3. Routine repairs should be responded to within 20 working days.
    4. A resident may be asked to lift up a floor covering to allow access to carry out work. If the landlord assists with this, it is not responsible for putting things back in place or for any damage incurred, unless it is caused by neglect by its repair workers.
13. The repair records showed the landlord raised repairs to the staircase and banister on 20 November 2024. The landlord attended on 5 December 2024, within routine policy timeframe. It said the resident needed to remove the carpet before it would investigate, in line with its repairs policy.
14. The resident complaineda month later on 3 January 2025 and she said she was “physically unable to remove the carpet and the situation posed a safety risk.”The landlord responded promptly 2 days later and said taking up the carpet was the resident’s responsibility. While this was in line with its policy, it would have been reasonable to consider options to assist the resident given her health conditions.
15. We contacted the landlord after the resident raised the complaint with us. In response, the landlord emailed the resident on 20 March 2025 asking for clarification in relation to the stairs/carpet issue, which was reasonable. However, there was no evidence of any further contact attempts. This was a second missed opportunity to consider what action it could take in relation to the stairs, which was a failing.
16. The landlord then used its stage 1 complaint response to try and put things right. However, it would have been reasonable for it to remove and re-lay the carpet. This is because:
    1. It is responsible for the maintenance of the stairs.
    2. The resident had raised her health conditions.

The landlord’s failure to consider re–laying the carpet or the option of a disclaimer at this point contributed to delays assessing the stairs, which was unreasonable.   

17. The landlord said it would remove the carpet to assess the staircase in the stage 2 response. But the resident needed to sign a disclaimer in case the carpet got damaged. While this was a reasonable approach to take, it could have been considered earlier.
18. Overall, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the stairs. The landlord missed opportunities to consider how it could help the resident in January 2025, March 2025, and April 2025 when it sent its stage 1 complaint response. The resident first raised the issue in November 2024 and the landlord did not take reasonable action to investigate the stairs until the stage 2 response, 8 months later. This was an unreasonable delay. The landlord made some attempt to put things right in its stage 2 response. But the failure to offer compensation was unreasonable. There was therefore maladministration. An order of £200 compensation is made in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident.

19. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will keep in good repair the structure of the property and exterior of the building.
20. The landlord’s planned maintenance policy for major works and improvements outlines the approach to major repairs and replacements which includes windows.
21. The repair records provided show the resident previously reported concerns with the windows in June 2022, July 2022, January 2023.
22. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s contact in January 2025. It said she should contact its major works team to find out when the windows were due an upgrade. However, the landlord should have raised a formal complaint at this point. It could then have addressed the resident’s concerns in relation to the windows in its complaint response. The resident emailed us on 24 February 2025 and 9 April 2025 said she still had not received a response from the major works team. We acknowledge the landlord emailed the resident on 20 March 2025. But the email did not mention the windows, which was a missed opportunity to progress the issue for the resident.
23. The landlord raised a work order that the living room and bedroom wooden windows were rotten on 16 April 2025. This was after the resident re-raised her complaint. An operative attended on 20 May 2025, in line with its routine repairs policy, but found no fault with the windows.
24. The resident emailed us and the landlord on 15 June 2025 and said the lack of updates and action in relation to the windows added to her distress. Internal emails showed the landlord chased its major works team. But this was not until 10 July 2025, almost a month later. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to update the resident, which was appropriate. It said:
    1. The windows had been inspected and no faults were found.
    2. The property had been included in the upcoming window renewal programme for 2025/2026.

The resident said the windows had not been replaced in a call with us on 3 March 2026.

25. Overall, there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided. It did not appropriately acknowledge this or fully it right. The landlord has been poor in its communication with the resident. There was therefore service failure and an award of £100 compensation is made to reflect distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the lack of update in relation to the windows.

26. The landlord’s policy says it will:
    1. Acknowledge both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days, which aligns with the Code.
    2. Send a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
    3. Send a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
27. In the resident’s email of 3 January 2025 she said “this letter serves as a formal complaint.” However, the raise landlord did not raise or acknowledge the complaint. This was a failing and led the resident to contact us.
28. We acknowledge the landlord emailed the resident on 20 March 2025 following contact from us to clarify the complaint details. However, it then said it closed the complaint after no response from the resident. This was a second missed opportunity to raise or acknowledge the complaint. The failure to do so led the resident to contact us again and caused delays.
29. The resident then re-raised the complaint with the landlord on 8 April 2025, 3 months after she had tried to raise her complaint initially. The landlord acknowledged the complaint promptly the same day and sent its stage 1 response within policy timeframe, which was positive. However, the complaint response did not acknowledge any failings in relation to the substantive issue or complaint handling and did not offer compensation, which was unreasonable. The stage 1 response should have tried to put things right at the earliest opportunity.
30. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 in an email to the landlord and us sent on 15 June 2025. The landlord acknowledged the escalation promptly the next day and sent its stage 2 response in line with policy. However, the response again failed to consider compensation for the delays.
31. Our complaint handling code says “outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.” While it was positive the landlord said it would keep the resident updated in relation to the windows, there is no evidence this has been done. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. There was therefore maladministration. An order of £200 compensation is made to reflect any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord’s repair records could have been clearer in this case. There was no information in relation to what work (if any) was carried out to the windows on 20 May 2025. There was also reference to a surveyor visit on 13 April 2024. However, there is no information about what was found or whether this date was correct.

Communication

33. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the complaints process could have been clearer and more timely.