London Borough of Newham (202212786)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212786

London Borough of Newham

1 October 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the lift.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a 3-bedroom sixth floor flat within a tower block. The resident lived with their partner, their adult children, and their grandchildren. The landlord is a local authority.
The resident’s partner has complex medical needs and is unable to use stairs. One of the resident’s children is the primary carer. The resident has stated that during 2022 they were recovering from 2 major surgeries.
On 6 May 2022 the one remaining operational lift in the block broke down. The following day the landlord moved the resident into hotel accommodation.
The resident raised a complaint on 14 September 2022. They were unhappy that they had been moved between several hotels since May 2022 due to the communal lift not working. They also wanted an update on the repair of the lift and an indication of when they would be able to return home.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 November 2022. It said:
1. It had discussed the resident’s concerns during a meeting with them on 22 July 2022 and had sent them a written outcome from the meeting on 27 July 2022.
2. It was awaiting information from its technical team about how it would resolve the situation with the lift. Once it had confirmed the way forward, it would make all the residents aware.
3. The resident had now signed a tenancy agreement for a property for emergency accommodation.
4. It had paid for the resident’s (and their family’s) hotel accommodation, parking, and laundry. It had ordered meals for the resident and provided funds for family meals.
5. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and the delay in resolving the resident’s issues.
On 21 November 2022 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. They said:
1. The meeting of 22 July 2022 was about temporary accommodation for the period while the landlord was refurbishing the block, not emergency accommodation while the lift was broken. The letter of 27 July 2022 also related to temporary accommodation, not emergency accommodation.
2. In relation to the property for which they had signed a tenancy agreement:
  1. The landlord had not included it in the letter of 27 July 2022.
  2. They had agreed in August 2022 to accept it as temporary accommodation.
  3. The landlord had not offered it as emergency accommodation until 29 September 2022.
3. The area they were moving to was not near their home, work, or school locations. This would be another added strain on their family.
The resident contacted this service on 29 August 2023 to advise they had not received a final response from the landlord. We wrote to the landlord on 5 October 2023 to request it issue its final response.
On 30 October 2023 the landlord advised it had ongoing legal negotiations with the resident which could be put at risk if it issued a final response. On 4 November it clarified that it had reached an agreement with the resident on 23 March 2023 for them to vacate their property for the period of the refurbishment works. It considered this agreement would settle any matters subject to the stage 2 complaint.
The resident disputed they had reached an agreement about the lift breakdown and told this service they wanted their complaint progressing. On 12 December 2023 we advised the landlord that if it did not issue its final response by the end of the day we would issue a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO).
On 15 January 2024 the Ombudsman issued a CHFO. On 24 January 2024 this service notified the landlord that, as it had not responded to the CHFO, the resident’s complaint would be treated as having exhausted its internal complaint procedure and accepted for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord has advised that plans to regenerate the resident’s block have been ongoing since 2003. As of 2010 (until 2022) the resident’s property was one of only 4 remaining occupied properties in the block. The landlord had been in discussion with the remaining residents since March 2021 to obtain vacant possession of their properties. This was to allow the landlord to refurbish the block.
As part of the discussion the landlord had identified properties it believed would be suitable for the resident and their family to move to, on a temporary basis, while the refurbishment was ongoing. It had provided the resident with details of these properties in April 2022.
These discussions continued throughout the period between the lift breakdown and the resident making their complaint. During this time the landlord identified further properties that it considered could be suitable for the resident to live in while the refurbishment took place.
In July 2022 the landlord informed the resident that if they did not agree to move to temporary accommodation then it would seek a compulsory purchase order for their property. The landlord advised it intended to begin this process in August 2022.
While the matters set out in paragraphs 13 to 16 are not part of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman considers it is important to note them as background and context to the matters subject to the complaint.
Throughout their evidence the resident and landlord have both referred to accommodation for the refurbishment works as ‘temporary accommodation’ and accommodation while the lift was not operational as ‘emergency accommodation’. This report will do the same.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the lift

The landlord inspected the lift on 27 May 2022. This was in line with its repair policy.
The inspection report states that the lift had malfunctioned because multiple components within the control system had failed. The surveyor noted that the manufacturer no longer supported the control system due to its age and the complete non-availability of spare parts. Since 2012 the adjacent lift (which had been decommissioned) had been used as a donor for spare parts, but all the required parts had already been used for previous repairs. The surveyor advised there would be a minimum 12-week lead time on any order for a replacement control system and that, even if repaired, it was likely further components would fail in the future.
The landlord provided the resident with a copy of the inspection report on 10 June 2022. It sent a further update on 13 July 2022 which explained any repair would be costly and that the landlord needed to follow its processes to ensure it obtained value for money. It also clarified that should it and the resident be able to reach an agreement about moving to temporary accommodation for the block refurbishment then the lift repair would be unnecessary. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take.
There is no clear evidence that the landlord took any further action to progress the repair of the lift. However, given the likely cost of any repair, the likelihood that it would only be a short-term fix, and that it was planned to replace the entire lift during the refurbishment, the Ombudsman considers it was reasonable for the landlord to place the repair on hold while it determined whether it was necessary.
The available evidence indicates that by August 2022 there was an agreement in principle between the landlord and the resident for them to move to temporary accommodation. While the resident did not start a tenancy at the property until 15 November 2022 (and then only as emergency accommodation) the evidence indicates there was an understanding the property would likely be temporary accommodation, and that the resident would not be returning home until after the refurbishment was completed.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the lift.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant

There does not appear to be any dispute that it would not have been possible for the resident (and their family) to remain in their property after the lift broke down.
Given the immediate need for accommodation, particularly in light of the resident’s partner’s disabilities, it was reasonable for the landlord to place the resident and their family in hotels while it took steps to inspect the lift and determine if it could be repaired.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 June 2022 to advise that it considered the properties it had identified in April 2022 were suitable as emergency accommodation. It was reasonable for the landlord to have waited until it had inspected the lift before deciding whether to offer these properties as emergency accommodation. It clarified that if the resident chose to move into one of the properties they could return to their home when it had repaired the lift, or they could remain in that property while it refurbished the block (including replacing the lift). This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take.
It is clear from the provided evidence that the resident disagreed that the identified properties were suitable. They had several specific requirements for temporary and/or emergency accommodation which included:
1. The size of the property (3-bedroom).
2. No stairs within the property and lift access externally.
3. Located close to:
  1. Their existing home.
  2. Their daughter’s (the primary carer) place of work.
  3. Their grandchildren’s schools.
While it was reasonable for the resident to outline their requirements for a suitable property it cannot be avoided that this was likely to have limited the number of potential properties that the landlord would be able to offer.
There is no evidence that the landlord, when suitable properties became available, delayed in offering them to the resident or had other suitable properties that it could have offered. The available evidence indicates that, in July 2022, it had explained to the resident that, in line with its housing allocation policy, it could only use hotels or existing housing stock for temporary or emergency accommodation. It also advised that 3-bedroom properties with lift access in the area the resident wanted were rare. This was reasonable information for the landlord to provide.
When a suitable property did become available, it is unclear why there was a delay between the resident agreeing it for temporary accommodation in August 2022 and starting a tenancy at the same property (as emergency accommodation) on 15 November 2022. This property is owned by a company that is wholly owned by the landlord.
The resident has provided minutes from a meeting held on 29 September 2022. These indicate that the property owner had now agreed to allow landlord to use the property as emergency accommodation. There is no information about why the property was originally only available for temporary accommodation, but it appears the landlord acted reasonably in requesting a change to the allowed use.
The same meeting minutes indicate the landlord would provide the resident with temporary replacement furniture for any large items they did not want to bring with them and assist them with moving to the property. It indicated it already had a process in place for this and it would take 7 to 10 days. It was reasonable for the landlord to make these offers of assistance.
It is apparent from these minutes that the resident still had concerns about moving to temporary or emergency accommodation. While this is understandable, the minutes demonstrate the landlord provided reasonable responses to these concerns. Neither the resident nor the landlord has provided any evidence which indicates that, having identified a suitable property for the resident, the landlord unduly delayed or prevented them from moving to the property.
While the Ombudsman accepts that living in hotels was undesirable to the resident and would likely have caused distress and frustration, the landlord appears to have taken all reasonable steps to locate suitable alternative accommodation as quickly as it could.
The landlord has acknowledged to this service that it was necessary to move the resident to different hotels and explained it was unable to make continuous bookings due to the size of the resident’s household (which required it to book 5 rooms) and the resident’s request to remain local to their home. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the situation must have been frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s explanation for its actions is reasonable.
The landlord has stated that, throughout the period of emergency accommodation, it paid towards the resident’s costs. The landlord has provided evidence of its costs in respect of hotel bookings as well as payments for food, parking, and laundry. The meeting minutes of 29 September 2022 also indicate that while the resident’s new tenancy was emergency accommodation the landlord would pay the rent, utilities, council tax and any other bills. This appears to be in line with its compensation policy and was an appropriate action by the landlord.
Having considered the circumstances of the case, it is the Ombudsman’s view that there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord took 46 working days to issue its stage 1 response. It was also necessary for this service to ask the landlord to re-issue the response as it did not initially provide the resident with details about how they could escalate their complaint. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’) and was not appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not provide a clear explanation for why the resident had needed to move several times since the communal lift had stopped working. The Code states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. As it did not do this, its stage 1 response was not appropriate.
The landlord did not issue a final response following the resident escalating their complaint. It also did not issue a final response after this service issued a CHFO. This was not appropriate.
The landlord has not provided an explanation for why it was unable to issue a final response. Simply stating that there were ongoing negotiations that could have been put at risk if it were to issue a final response was not sufficient. Given that the matters subject to the complaint appear to have effectively been concluded by November 2022 it is unclear how responding could have posed a risk to matters ongoing in October 2023. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s failure to issue responses in line with its policy and the Code significantly delayed the resident’s right to bring their complaint to this service. Even where the resident contacted this service for assistance the landlord failed to provide us with timely responses or comply with the CHFO. This was not appropriate.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the lift.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report. This written apology must be from the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £250 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.