Lambeth Council (202003390)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003390

Lambeth Council

20 January 2021

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 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 works to remedy a ceiling leak at the property.
The compensation offered by the landlord to the resident for inconvenience caused by the leak.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property.
The property is a first-floor flat and the resident experienced a ceiling leak coming from the walk patio of the flat above.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that the resident told it that she had first contacted the landlord to report a ceiling leak on 27 September 2019. A surveyor attended the property on 2 October 2019 and it was determined that the issue could stem from either the balustrade or the patio of the flat upstairs. As a result, on 4 October 2019, the surveyor requested for works to be carried out to the balustrade.
The resident reported that the landlord’s contractor assessed the impacted area on 10 October 2019 and then carried out the first repairs on 11 October 2019. During the visit on 11 October 2019 two tiles were reattached to the balustrade.
On 14 October 2019, the resident outlined that she had contacted the landlord’s contractor (who had previously attended the property to carry out repair works to the balustrade) to advise that the leak was not repaired as water was still penetrating into the property. The resident was told to contact the landlord.
On 15 October 2019, the resident reported that she contacted the landlord to advise that the issue was yet to be fixed. The landlord advised that it would contact the contractor to request for further works to be carried out. Subsequently, the resident contacted the landlord on 30 October 2019 as one of the tiles reattached by the contractor had fallen down. The landlord advised the resident that it would contact the contractor for further works to be arranged.
Following the contact with the landlord on 15 November 2019, the resident outlined that she was contacted by the landlord’s contractor to request permission to access the property. On 19 November 2019, a further inspection took place and the contractor identified that further works had to be carried out; however, they advised the resident that the landlord would not be paying for such repairs. During the same visit, the tile that was reported to have fallen down was reattached by the contractor.
On 22 November 2019, the resident outlined that she spoke to the landlord and that it reassured her that full works to the balustrade would be carried out by its contractor. Following this discussion, the resident tried chasing the matter with the landlord’s contractor but they advised that they could not go ahead as they did not have the necessary structural engineer’s report to do so.
The resident reported that she then tried contacting the landlord on two other occasions on 5 and 6 December 2019; however, she was unable to reach it, and, therefore, she left voicemails on both instances.
On 13 December 2019, the resident outlined that she contacted the landlord’s repairs department for further works requests to be raised. Between 13 and 20 December 2019, the resident contacted both the landlord and its contractor on various occasions to request updates on the matter. Whilst a specific date was not confirmed, it was mentioned that during the above dates the resident and the landlord’s contractor gained access to the property of the neighbour upstairs and were able to identify the root cause of the leak in the form of patio cracks, holes and AstroTurf and the remedial works required.
It was advised by the resident that, on 20 December 2019, she wrote to the landlord to attempt to log a stage one complaint regarding the handling of the required repairs. The logs provided by the landlord to this Service do not show a record of this. It is also noted that the resident contacted another department of the landlord regarding this matter and the complaint was forwarded to one of their representatives on 2 January 2020. The representative then forwarded the complaint on to the landlord’s complaints team on 6 January 2020.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the above mentioned complaint on 3 February 2020. At this time, the resident’s complaint was partly upheld, although this was for the incorrect repair. The resident brought this to the landlord’s attention on the same date and requested that it looked into the repair concerning the ceiling leak.
As the resident reported that she did not receive a reply regarding her above concerns, she contacted the landlord again on 7 February 2020 and requested for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage. The representative of the other department of the landlord chased this with its complaints team on 10 February 2020 as well. The landlord acknowledged the receipt of the escalation request on 13 February 2020.
On 19 February 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord. In this communication she explained that the issue concerning the ceiling leak had been ongoing for approximately five months and that it had affected her quality of life. The resident advised that whenever it rained the water would drip from the ceiling and that she had to gather this in containers in order to avoid damage to the floors; these containers caused her further inconvenience as she would trip over them. The resident advised that the water dripped close to her bed which has led to her occasionally sleeping on the kitchen floor as the noise was distressing and she could not rest. The resident also advised that she was looking for compensation for the following:

The cost of purchasing and running a dehumidifier – which was used to prevent mould and damp from developing.
The costs incurred by remedial works that she would have to carry out after the leak was fixed. The resident advised that the insurance company would only cover a part of the quoted costs and that she would need to resort to a bank loan (which would incur interest) to pay for the difference.
The financial losses that she would incur due to her lodger having to move out while the remedial works were carried out.
The inconvenience caused by the situation and amount of time that it took for this to be dealt with.

In the same communication, the resident had also expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s record keeping because, due to the number of repairs raised, she found it difficult to effectively communicate with the landlord and its contractor.
It is noted that, between 6 February and 6 March 2020, the landlord was in contact with the resident of the flat above, to try and gain permission for entry and to carry out repairs.
On 16 March 2020, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response in which it addressed the resident’s concerns regarding repairs, delays, inconvenience caused, compensation and its handling of the stage one complaint as follows:

Repairs – the Landlord confirmed the inspections and works already carried out and advised that the necessary repairs to balcony asphalt, floor and roof tiles, insulation and a downpipe were scheduled to be carried out on 6 April 2020.
Delays – the landlord acknowledged the delays caused by the lack of communication between 28 November and 20 December 2019. It explained that these had been caused by staff leave, advised this was forwarded on to the designated department and apologised.
Inconvenience caused – the landlord apologised for this and offered the below compensation.
Compensation – the landlord offered compensation of £100 as a goodwill gesture and acknowledgement of the issues and distress caused. It advised the resident that, in order to be able to consider further compensation, she could provide it with her electricity statements to prove any increases. Additionally, the landlord made the resident aware that she could submit a liability claim to it.
Handling of the stage one complaint – the landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused.

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the appointment for 6 April 2020 was cancelled and rescheduled for 14 July 2020. The resident and the occupant of the flat above were informed of this. This Service has no further information on the appointment scheduled for 14 July 2020; however, logs show that, on 15 July 2020, another appointment was booked in for 21 July 2020. No further information was given on this either, although it was confirmed that the full remedial works were completed on 24 August 2020.

On 18 September 2020, the landlord’s contractor carried out a post inspection and during this, it was determined that the works carried out were to standard and no further repairs were needed. The resident also confirmed that the water ingress had stopped.

It is noted that the landlord acknowledged that there had been cancelled appointments which was due to reasons outside of its control such as the Covid-19 pandemic, no access given to the property above or refusal to remove certain items to allow for the works to be carried out.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repair works

As per the landlord’s repairs policy, if the resident is a leaseholder, the landlord is responsible for undertaking repairs to the outside of the building and common areas. The landlord aims to respond to all repairs as soon as possible; it has a five-category system and the urgency of the works will be determined based on the below:
1. Priority one – repairs must be carried out within 24 hours and/or by emergency call out of the repair being reported.
2. Priority two – repairs must be carried out within two working days of the repair being reported.
3. Priority three – repairs must be carried out within five working days of the repair being reported.
4. Priority four – repairs must be carried out within 30 working days of the repair being reported.
5. Priority five – repairs that are carried out as part of an agreed programme or improvement works within 90 days, unless otherwise stated.
The resident’s lease details both the resident’s and the landlord’s responsibilities to carry out repairs as below:
1. The resident is responsible to repair the ceilings (but not the joists, beams or concrete floors to which said ceilings are attached).
2. The landlord is responsible to repair the structure of the building including roofs, foundations, external and internal walls (but not the interior faces of the external or internal walls). The landlord is also responsible for repairing timber joists and beams of the floors and ceilings.
3. The landlord is also to insure and keep insured the building of which the flat is part of. It is noted that the landlord should use all monies incurred towards the full reinstatement of the property.
As per the above, the landlord was to assess the property, determine the priority of the repairs and move forward with booking appointments for the necessary works to be carried out, providing the resident with a timeframe.
The resident reported the issue on 27 September 2019 and the landlord carried out an initial survey on 2 October 2019, identifying two possible defects that could have caused the leak. The surveyor advised the resident of both possible defects and ordered for the simpler works to be carried out; however, it failed to provide the resident with a timeframe or to advise of the priority of the works.
Moving forward, the landlord carried out various inspections to both the resident’s property and to the property upstairs. The landlord gained access to the property upstairs between 13 and 20 December 2019 and was able to inspect the area. During these assessments, it was determined that the remedial works were to be carried out to the property upstairs, not to the resident’s property. The landlord was effective in identifying the repairs necessary to stop the leak and trying to book the necessary appointments. It is to be taken into account that the landlord encountered difficulties with gaining access to the property that required repairs and also had to cancel or delay appointments due to the restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic, such as the one booked in for 6 April 2020.
This Service appreciates that certain matters were outside of the landlord’s control; however, it was unreasonable for it to take almost one year to carry out the repairs necessary to stop the leak, as the issue was initially reported on 27 September 2019 and the repairs were completed on 24 August 2020. The landlord was also not compliant with its repairs policy as it failed to carry out the repairs within the specified timeframes. The landlord should have instead taken a more effective approach towards contacting the occupier of the property requiring repairs, ordered all necessary works as soon as the defects were identified, advised the resident of the extent of the works required along with specific timeframes for when these will be carried out.

Compensation offered for inconvenience

In its compensation policy, the landlord advises that it may pay monetary compensation in instances where service failure is found, as a result of a complaint.
In her complaint to the landlord, the resident requested compensation for the inconvenience caused, costs incurred and financial losses. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s requests and was effective in advising that, as per its compensation policy, it could only provide compensation for the inconvenience caused. The landlord was reasonable in providing the resident with the necessary information on how to obtain further compensation for the increased cost of electricity bills and how to submit a liability claim.
Taking into consideration the information brought forward to this Service, our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy, the resident could be compensated with an amount between £50 and £250, depending on the extent of inconvenience caused to her.
As a result of this complaint, the Landlord offered compensation of £100 to the resident as an acknowledgement of the faults identified and for any inconvenience caused. The landlord was effective in acknowledging that this was not the resident’s desired outcome and readdressed the alternative options previously provided above to obtain further compensation and submit a liability claim.
Taking into account the following factors:

amount of time the landlord took to carry out the necessary repairs
inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by having to manage the water entering the property
impact on the resident’s quality of life

It has been found that the amount of £100 offered to the Resident as compensation was unreasonable due to the impact this situation reportedly had on her quality of life. It has been noted that the resident outlined that she could not use the affected room as per usual as she had to place several containers to collect the water and run a dehumidifier to avoid damp and mould from developing. This led to the resident reporting that she was not able to rest properly, have gatherings or carry out her day-to-day activities unhindered.

33.As previously mentioned in this report, it is understandable that the landlord could not carry out the necessary remedial works in due time due to extenuating circumstances; however, it was unreasonable for these to take almost one year to complete. It is evident that certain delays, and therefore the amount of inconvenience caused to the resident and compensation required, could have been avoided or diminished by a more efficient communication and record keeping system.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it:

handled the necessary remedial works
awarded compensation to the resident.

Reasons

Despite the landlord following its repairs policy and the resident’s lease to assess the property and arrange for the remedial works to be carried out, it failed to do so in a timely manner which caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.

The landlord offered compensation of £100 in recognition of the issues found and inconvenience caused; however, this was unreasonable considering the amount of time spent by the resident trying to chase and resolve this and distress caused.

Order

The landlord to pay compensation of £250, to the resident, in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, for distress and inconvenience.
This is to be paid to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. If any compensation has already been paid to the resident in respect of this matter then the landlord will pay the difference between the amount paid and the above.

Recommendations

The landlord should try to be more thorough in its record keeping. A clear and concise process of logging and noting every interaction will be easier for both staff and residents to keep track of what is happening and communicate more effectively.
The landlord should also improve its communication system with residents to ensure that any delays caused by lack of communication are avoided.
The landlord shall contact this Service within 4 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order and to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.